Talk:Killings at Coolacrease

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Ireland Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 May 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents 1 Component of a debate 2 Political background 3 Re Comments 4 The facts about Coolacrease 5 Morality Tale? 6 Review 6.1 Article 6.1.1 The Pearsons of Coolacrease 6.1.2 The shooting of the Pearsons 6.1.3 The aftermath 6.1.4 Debate 6.2 Conclusions 6.2.1 Bibliography 6.2.2 References 7 Revision 7.1 edit deux 8 Cleanup tags 9 Unreadable 10 Comment on Previous 10.1 Synthesis, original research and unreliable sources 11 Lord Bew on Coolacrease 12 Please read WP:TPG 12.1 Please read wikipedia policies and guidelines 13 Offaly Heritage

[edit] Component of a debate

There appears to be an attempt to convert this article into a component of a debate. And not even a debate about the subject of the article under the heading (Irish History) in which the article is located. The debate about a recent television programme is ongoing, and taking place elsewhere. It has no place in this article, which is about something which happened nearly a century ago. I propose to remove the irrelevant material within the next week.Knockanore (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do it, and don't feel obliged to wait. At least one of those who has made significant edits to the article appears to have been one of those who made an unsuccessful complaint about the RTE program, and wikipedia should not be used to promote one person's perspective in this way. Note, BTW, that many of Pat Muldowney's claims were undermined by RTE's research (which involved access to the primary sources), so I query whether Muldowney's book is a reliable source. (One of the problems here is that very little available by way of reliable sources, apart from primary sources and the RTE documentary). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer to take a little time to check out the various references and sources. I would agree that the reference to Muldowney's book should be removed. I have checked it out, and it is a transcript of an Indymedia debate. To be fair, the debate and publication took place BEFORE the RTÉ documentary was broadcast, and Muldowney does not use it as a source in the article, merely as one of the few publications available in print about the Coolacrease episode. At the moment I think it would be unwise for the article to use anything other than whatever exists in the form of relatively hard evidence. I do NOT include a TV programme in this category. In my opinion, the ongoing debate about an RTÉ programme must be removed from this Wikipedia article about the actual events. These are separate issues. I have read the Broadcasting Complaints Commissions comments, and they specifically exclude any judgement on the historical issues, and deal only with some technical aspects of the broadcast documentary. The BCC is about broadcasting, not history. Also, it seems that one of the professional historians involved in the programme has publicly expressed post-broadcast concerns about its reliability, while none of the other professional historians has publicly defended it. I think the best that can be done at this stage is to reference the "hard" evidence, then await further authoritative research on the subject. First I propose to check whether the actual "hard" evidence is being reliably described in the article to date, then report back here. Knockanore (talk) 09:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the original version of the article to make available the basic, and generally acknowledged, facts of a little-known event in Irish history. Most people come down on one side or other of the historic issue, and I tried also to present, in addition to the acknowledged facts, the points in the 1921 events about which there is disagreement. I did not publish the article pseudonomously; it was done without secrecy or subterfuge. If anyone could be bothered to take the trouble, they could easily find my address and telephone number. In listing my own publication (but not as a source) I deliberately disclosed my own involvement in the debate about the events. So I have not pretended to be anything other than what I am. I have no idea who the other (pseudonymous) contributors to the article/discussion are, or what, if any, is their involvement in the broader debate. Regarding the points above, while I reserve a right to dispute particular edits, I agree in principle with the approach outlined above by Knockanore, and intend to refrain from further edits for the time being. Pat Muldowney (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Knockanore, and for your diligence ... and thanks too to Pat for replying here.

I think, though, that we have a real difficulty here: wikipedia articles should use secondary sources, not primary sources, and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of reliable secondary sources (I accept Knockanore's point about the problems with the RTE program and the limitations of the BCC's examinations). Beyond some fairly basic facts, most of the significant factual points of the story seem to be hotly disputed, and of course interpretations vary wildly.

I should have acknowledged that it was indeed good of Pat to be open about his identity in this, but even so it's still inappropriate for an editor to write (or make substantive contributions to) a wikipedia article on a subject in which the editor has such a strong stake on one side of a debate.

I have just been looking through the article as created by Pat, and there are a lot of things which concern me about the balance of the article, including:

• Para 3 of the section "Pearsons of Coolacrease" presents the political background from a purely Republican perspective. That's the perspective I prefer, but there are several other perspectives on this era which are not fairly expressed here.
• Para 4 of the same section refers to the mass path issue as a "sectarian dispute", which implies that the Pearsons closed the path out of religious prejudice. I have not checked all the sources (though I have read the indymedia docuements), but the closure of the path appears to have arisen out of heightened tensions and security concerns relating to the conflict rather than to religious issues
• The section "The shooting of the Pearsons" starts with what seem to be two well-balanced paras, but the third para begins "An official investigation was held by the military representatives of the elected Irish government". That's a fairly partisan perspective of the IRA's status and structure at the time: it implies a much more formal structure to the IRA than was realistically possible in a guerilla war, and it acknowledges only the republican perspective of the IRA as "representatives of the elected Irish government", without acknowledging that there a political dispute over legitimacy of both sides was central to the conflict and to circumstances in which non-combatants found themselves. In a conflict such as the war of independence, ordinary people are frequently faced with a choice of allegiance between two sets of forces each claiming legitimacy, and each of which regards civilian "disloyalty" as treachery.
• The next section, "The aftermath" is particularly problematic. It purports to present both sides of the argument, but makes only an outline case for the Pearsons and then adds a lengthy paragraph designed to demolish those arguments. This appears to be particularly slanted. It seems to be undisputed that an execution squad left the two men to bleed to death over several hours, which is not normal practice for an execution. The article then says "the medical evidence shows there was no genital mutilation," but the reports appear to be agree that there were injuries around the groin. Ready the papers on indymedia, there seems to be dispute as to whether or not "groin" should be read as to include genitalia, but the way that this presented here contrasts makes a heightened charge of "genital mutilation" which it dismisses without acknowledging that shots to anywhere in that area would be no part of a normal execution (which would target the head or the heart)
• The article also contains lots of weasel words, such as "it is argued that". Argued by who? The disputant should be clearly identified.
• The final paragraph says "The Killings at Coolacrease which portrayed the events as a sectarian atrocity resulting from a dispute over land. [37] An opposing view was presented in [38]", and footnote 38 links to an indymedia article by Pat Muldowney. Indymedia is not a reliable source, and this was Pat citing his own work, which is not appropriate.

In cleaning this up, I'm not sure what reliable sources are actually available. For a subject as contentious as this, peer-reviewed publications are by far the best, but all we appear to have are accounts by partisan local historians and memoirs, the hotly-disputed RTE documentary and and Philip McConway's two articles in the Tullamore Tribune, as well as some brief contemporaneous newspaper reports; the rest is primary sources.

So far as I can see, there is not enough available in reliable sources for anything other than a brief and stubby article on the actual history, with a carefully neutral acknowledgement of the debate following the RTE program. The rest would not be about the history itself, but about the highly public historiogrphical controversy which followed the RTE program.

I welcome Pat saying that he will refrain from further edits for the time being, but of course contributions to the talk page don't cause any COI problems and would be welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A few cursory comments in response, without prejudice to the development of the article -

• • In the democratic era, when the influence - not to speak of the armies - of the "international community" is mobilised when the results of elections are set aside, it seems strange to me to describe the events of 1918-21 without reference to the election results of December 1918, January and June of 1920, and May 1921. Especially as the democratic era had just been inaugurated with the slaughter of millions in the name of democracy and national self-determination.

• • I would agree that that the mass path incidents were almost certainly not "sectarian" in the sense purely and simply of religious doctrine. The early Cooneyites were often sectarian in that sense - primarily against the Protestant faiths. But there is no record of the Pearsons engaging in sectarian activities of that nature. However, the common usage of the term "sectarian" in Ireland is in connection with conflicts between Protestants of loyalist persuasion and Catholics of nationalist persuasion. "Sectarian" is the widely used shorthand for politically motivated conflict along those alignments.

• • The IRA investigation was carried out under the authority and direction of Thomas Burke, following his appointment by Richard Mulcahy, in proceedings which Burke's report describes as Court of Enquiry or Officer Convention. At this point the (underground) government of the Dáil had received the allegiance of the politically heterogeneous County and Urban Councils which carried on day to day administration of health, welfare and infrastructure. Justice was successfully administered by a system of courts under the authority of the Dáil government. The Dáil at that time had the allegiance and affiliation of the army. (In contrast with, for instance, the 1914 period when the British government lost the undivided support of the British Army in the Curragh Mutiny.) In my opinion the success of that phase of the independence movement was because it not only sought to create and preserve law and order, but was partially successful in that effort. And this aspect is intimately connected with the kind of authority and legitimacy which electoral democracy had initiated in Ireland, based as it was, for the first time, on a franchise of a majority of adults where previously only an all-male minority had the vote.

• • Re executions, I would agree that, in the circumstances, some members of a citizen army might be less efficient at killing people than a professional or mercenary army. Pat Muldowney (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A few quick replies.

On the elections etc

• From a popular sovereignty perspective, the legitimacy of the First and second Dala is clear. However, there are several other perspectives. One of those is an imperialist view, and another is a constitutional formalist view that a new state can only be created through existing legal and constitutional processes. The article presents only one of those views.

Sectarianism

• I don't think that we disagree much on substance here. However, "sectarian" is a highly emotive word in this context, and it would be much more more neutral to simply explain the nature of the dispute, without attaching this sort of label to it.

Investigation

• The investigation bore none of the characteristics of due process, not even those normally applicable under martial law. I see no claim anywhere that those sentenced to death in this case were given any opportunity to present their case; if I understand the sequence of events correctly, they were simply informed that a sentence of death had been passed on them. There are difft points of view about how that may be viewed in the context of a guerilla war, but discussion of courts appears to be irrelevant in this case, because I see no claim that any court was in any way involved.

Executions

• The IRA had plenty of members who very well how to kill people when they needed to do so. In this case, there was no issue of taking shots in difficult circumstances, as would apply in an ambush — and no reason that I have seen to impede any of the IRA volunteers from finishing off the executions by close-range shots to the head or heart. For whatever reasons, they chose not to do so, and you don't need to be professional soldier to tell the difference between an execution which has been completed and one which hasn't. There is a question about why none of the IRA volunteers dispatched to carry out an execution succeeded in finishing the job: were they incompetent or under-trained, and if so why were they selected? Or did they choose not to finish the job? Questions questions, raising lots of POV issues and grounds for speculation, but something went seriously awry somewhere if a firing squad carrying out a death sentence walked away with its targets still living. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Political background

Hi folks, I thought I'd correct this para: "The elections of December 1918[5] gave a mandate for independence (confirmed in the elections of January 1920 and May 1921[6]) and an Irish government was formed on that basis. Instead of entering into negotiations with the elected representatives, the British Imperial government sought to suppress by force the Irish government, its courts and its volunteer armed forces (the Irish Republican Army or IRA). The resulting military conflict is called the Irish War of Independence."

• The mandate for an independent Republic in 1918 was that: "Sinn Féin aims at securing the establishment of that Republic".
• The war started on 21 January 1919.
• The first Dail met and declared an independent Irish Republic, also on 21 January 1919.
• The Dail was outlawed by the British in September 1919, when they limbered up to drafting the 4th Home Rule Bill.
• At any time the Dail TDs were entitled by electoral law to argue their case in London, but chose not to do so for policy reasons.
• The Volunteer (IRA) units pledged allegiance to the Dail (as representing the Republic) in the course of August 1920.
• The Dail accepted that there was a state of war only in March 1921.

I don't think the Dail courts were relevant to the Coolacrease incident, as the sentence was decided by an IRA officer. The courts didn't adjudicate on assaults or killings, just on land and property disputes.Red Hurley (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re Comments

According to Paddy Heaney’s book and his Offaly Hist Soc journal article, there were eight at the roadblock, two of whom were armed, on sentry duty on the road either side of where the tree was being cut down. All of them are easily identified, the youngest, Bill Glenn, died fairly recently. Bill’s mother was a Somme widow. They received a small part of the Pearson farm from the Land Commission.

Since I am hands-off for the moment, perhaps the recent editor (Red Hurley?) would re-visit this point in the article?

As to the other concepts or possibilities – the Empire Loyalist mode (to which it may or may not be supposed the Pearsons subscribed) had a long pedigree. Much of the world had been governed in accordance with this doctrine (“Whether or not you believe it or accept it or understand why, it is better for you to be governed by Britain”). Trouble is, whether or not it has validity, it is hard to constitute this pedigree into a justification or case in favour of the Pearsons, when the Empire government itself, in order to pursue its Great War, pretended to espouse a very different doctrine of democratic rights and national rights. If valid it is a point against them, not in their favour. Of course, that is not a reason not to put it on record - if it is true.

A “legal and constitutional” mode was mentioned. There were precedents for this too. After a plebiscite, Sweden conceded sovereignty to Norway in 1903. The old Sinn Féin hankered after some similar development in Hungary.

The nationalist/separatist Irish had invested massively in this approach. But its leaders including John Redmond had emphasised that this approach was justified by its prospects of success, which for a while seemed very good, until Ulster’s armed rebellion destroyed it by effecting a change in British policy. The default position acknowledged by Redmond and others - in Parliament and elsewhere, and before and after the 1910 elections - was armed resistance to British authority in Ireland, authority which was based not on consent or any other non-coercive mandate, but on superior power. On force, in other words.

Most people, for most of the time, will routinely and reasonably accede to superior power. But that does not change the coercive character of such authority. Outside of the sphere of the Ulster revolt, most people believed that Redmond had failed. We can hardly claim that they were stupider than we are, and they were in a good position to judge the situation. Worse than that, Redmond’s failed policy had led many thousands into the killing fields for no good reason. So the routine of passive accession to superior force was broken on all sides.

Whether or not we count the Rising, armed hostilities were in progress long before 1919. For instance, two Volunteers were killed in an engagement in Gortlea in Kerry in March 1918. The sedition laws brought superior force to bear on those who engaged in political activity based on the doctrine of national self-determination and democracy which the British government had espoused.

It seems to me that those who were subjected to a coercive authority had some ultimate right of resistance, at least in some circumstances. But before the first ever democratic elections in Ireland, neither side had a democratic mandate. (The British government never even sought one.) Those elections conferred democratic legitimacy on one side. That democratic legitimacy was also retrospective, since a great many of the candidates elected had proposed their activities in arms as a point in their favour, and were rewarded electorally for it, rather than punished.

It is a bit silly to question whether voters knew what they were doing. Many of the candidates were in prison, it was perfectly obvious what was at issue. No reasonable person would prefer violent conflict if there was any reasonable way of avoiding it. But according to Laffan’s book “The Resurrection of Sinn Fein”, their 1918 Election Manifesto committed them to using ‘any and every means available to render impotent the power of England to hold Ireland in subjection by military force or otherwise’.

It ill-behoves us to take a superior attitude to this, rather than an objective attitude. Who are we to second-guess the people and their democratic choices? They were not madder than we are, not aspiring to bring violence into their lives and the lives of other people without cause.

So I think the original formulation of this point in the article is sound as far as it goes.

As to the Burke’s Court of Enquiry or Officers’ Battalion Council, these were the terms in which Burke described it. What is the evidence that this was not what took place?

Nobody ever said that the Pearson case was dealt with by the civil Courts of the Dáil government. It seems that, in a procedure of some formality, the Irish military authority satisfied itself that the Pearsons had engaged in arms and were combatants on the side of the British forces. In a war, combatants do not take their opponents to court. They do their best to kill them. Burke ordered this, with the authority of Richard Mulcahy.

That is what happened to the Pearsons, in my opinion. Any death is regrettable. The war was regrettable. People who suffer agonising deaths in car crashes are the objects of our sympathy. The manner of the Pearsons’ death was regrettable. How did it happen this way? There are some clues available, but the frenzy which has been worked up about the subject seems to be inhibiting investigation.

The greatest hazard to our lives that most of us subject ourselves to is driving to the supermarket for the weekly shop. The circumstances of the Pearson executions were hazardous. Pat Muldowney (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Pat, you're still at it, still arguing the case for the republican legitimacy viewpoint. :(

And I'm afraid that you are still missing the crucial point that wikipedia has a policy of neutrality. It doesn't matter how persuasive you find that case, wikipedia is not the case to make it; on wikipedia, all points of view should be given prominence according to their significance.

That means that in covering the troubles in Northern Ireland, articles are strictly neutral as to the merits of the IRA's view of the legitimacy of armed struggle, versus the British view that the army and RUC were upholding law-and-order under legitimacy of a democratic state in which Republicans gained a very small percentage of the votes.

However, if were to follow your legitimacy logic, we'd have scores of articles on the Troubles in Northern Ireland in which readers were told at great length how "IRA terrorists" deserved to be shot on sight, and the article on Operation Flavius would have to be approved by an SAS apologist.

That simply isn't how neutral reporting works. It doesn't set out to deconstruct one side's case or to strengthen the other case; it tries to report facts if they are agreed, and to record the views of both sides where there is disagreement or uncertainty.

I quite agree that the frenzy which has been whipped up is unhelpful. But this is far from being the only subject on wikipedia where there has been a frenzied public debate, and wikipedia's job is to remain neutral between the protagonists. Wikipedia does exist not to provide a vehicle for protagonists on either side of a historical debate; there are plenty of places where those debates can be conducted, but not here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Your robust comment on democracy is refreshing, BHG! Yes, the legitimacy issue is complicated. That's why I posted to the Discussion page. In more practical vein, I noticed a recent Edit: "That the prevalence of injuries to the groin and the lower abdominal area indicates a deliberate intent by the firing squad to mutilate their victims." This is misleading. The medics reported a spread of injuries from head to lower legs. IF there was a "prevalence" it was elsewhere. That makes any meaning away from the "intent" part of the sentence. Pat Muldowney (talk) 10:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Pat, it's not the function of a wikipedia article to analyse the primary sources, but to report the commentary, and that section is specifically reporting the various interpretations. That sentence is intended to summarise the viewpoints expressed by David Adams and others. The medical report on one of the deaths (I forget which one) was that the fatal injury was that to the "lower abdomen", with other wounds described as superficial. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The facts about Coolacrease

I can help you there with your memory lapse, BHG!

You can read the medical reports in full at [1], plus much of the other actual evidence (as opposed to ill-informed commentary based on a TV programme which concealed these reports). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pat Muldowney (talk • contribs) 18:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Indymedia is not a reliable source, so we can't use that material as a reference for the story. However, the text of ill-informed commentary's testimony is interesting:

found RICHARD H PEARSON lying on a mattress in a field at the back of the house. I examined him and found a superficial wound in the left shoulder, a deep wound in the right groin and right buttock, the entrance (?) of the latter being in front. In addition there were wounds in the left lower leg of a superficial nature and about six in the back which were glancing (?) wounds. In my opinion these wounds were all caused by either revolver or rifle bullets, and were fired at close quarters ... The fatal wound in my opinion was that on the groin.

In other words, in addition to glancing wounds on his back, there was a shot fired "at close quarters" into the groin, from in front. It's interesting that someone who claims that the report was concealed appears not to have read that passage, but it's very poor work for someone who has not only read it but published it to denounce others for "ill-informed commentary".

Anyway, now that we've cleared that up, perhaps you might want to explain why you regard the Pearsons as "Amish from hell"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Morality Tale?

It must be frustrating that a well-packaged atrocity story - which initially seemed persuasive when I first encountered it in full a few years ago - turns out to be not quite the morality tale that it seemed at first sight. It is amusing to watch the mental gyrations of its adherents trying to cope with the evidence. The more careful and prudent ones have just gone silent about it, while the more zealous ones still blunder about in disappointment, and - let's face it - anger.

The existence of this important medical evidence was not mentioned in the RTÉ programme. There was no conceivable excuse for such cover-ups, and that is why the superficially plausible TV programme quickly lost credibility.

Wounds all over the body, from the shoulder to the leg, are recorded for Richard Pearson. Similarly Abraham Pearson. Though all of the shots were fired from close quarters, according to the report above, the wall (which I've examined) of the yard was marked with bullet holes. In other words the firing was very inaccurate. According to the medical reports, death was from "shock and haemorrhage", and "shock", respectively. They do not say that death resulted directly from damage to any vital organ. In other words, instead of being operated on to shut off the haemorrhage (there was plenty of time to save them), they were allowed to bleed to death.

There is no pleasant way to be shot. The people shot by the Pearsons also had a hard time. Why is there no fuss about them? One naturally feels human sympathy for anyone who suffers in war. But if the Pearsons had not wanted to risk this fate, they would not have participated in armed combat in war-time. Seems kind of obvious.

The full transcripts of hard evidence that I have published in The facts about Coolacrease have not been published by anybody else, especially not by the controversial RTÉ programme. The fact that these transcripts are in Indymedia sites has not stopped all and sundry from looking them up, whether for the purpose of selective cherry-picking or to find out what really happened. I could have published in any website - what difference would that make? They would still read exactly the same. It had crossed my mind to also put them in some Wikipedia documentation project, but now I definitely will not. If people want to get this evidence for themselves they'll either have to go to the Public Records Office in Kew, or go to Indymedia.

The Pearsons were not Amish and not from Hell. "Amish from Hell" was a piece of sarcasm directed, not at the Pearsons, the Amish, or Hell, but at Eoghan Harris who portrayed the Pearsons as saintly, rustic Bible folk. Saintly, rustic Bible folk who got nasty with church-goers and fired "over the heads" of neighbourhood rascals. Other bits of the sarcasm, as far as I can remember, were "Amish with attitude", "Amish with form", "Amish with guns". The Pearsons were no better than the rest of us. I get the impression of people who were perhaps good company, but obsessive about money and property. Nothing unusual about that, I think. Pat Muldowney (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, for that, Pat. You really should write it up up in a morality guide, so that next time someone gets shot in the groin, whether by the IRA or British Army or AlQuaeda or Chetniks, we all remember that it's terribly tough on the person who pulled the trigger ... and that if they die, blame should be attached to the doctors who didn't save them.

You could also warn folks that the next time they see accounts of Belfast kids shot in the face by plastic bullets, they should remember that the kids were "were rather unremarkable people, best forgotten about" and reserve the "fuss" for the people who fired the bullets.

The Pearsons may indeed be "no better than the rest of us", and you have made it clear that that you have little sympathy for them. You are entitled to your view, and it has been well-aired, but there are other views too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

whoa!!... At this stage I would like to say I read the article & bookmarked it. It is indeed a well-packaged atrocity story. It is certainly not clear to me that Pat has no sympathy for the Pearsons. Dischaging firearms by anyone is either justified or not depending on your viewpoint. However burning houses is what the Janjaweed do and frankly blocking public footpaths is considered a heinous action by both ramblers and the lawful Government of the country I live in (...but not necessarily by the farmers). I found the article informative and, 90 odd years after the event, chilling. Aatomic1 (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the interesting thing about this sad story is the number of forks in it; the number of points at which facts are blurry or disputed, and even when they are not, the number of points at which events can be interpreted differently.

The footpath issue to which you point is one of those forks. In England these days, footpaths are protected by all sorts of groups, but in Ireland these days the paths are increasingly blocked with barbed wire, and there are far fewer than even when I was a kid. There used to be many more footpaths in rural Ireland, and I'm sure that the mass path at Coolacrease was not unusual.

So from one point of view, blocking the path was a terrible thing to do. But on the other hand, this was a time of war (as Pat frequently points out), with heightened tensions on all sides, and it appears that the farm-owners felt threatened by people crossing their land. Whose fault was the dispute, and did the Pearsons respond appropriately? Take your pick, based on one or more a whole number of possible principles from "nobody had any right to block a path" to "it was their land, they were entitled to defend it", with any number of nuances inbetween ... and add in all the mutual suspicion that arises in any guerilla war, and you've got something that people will never agree on.

You're right that burning houses is what the Janjaweed do. However, it's also what the Black and Tans did in Ireland, and the IRA responded in kind. Legitimate tactic for either side? There's no answer to that one which will satisfy everyone, and probably no single answer that will satisfy more than a minority of any diverse group.

Multiply that by several similar forks in the course of the program, and you have a very uncomfortable story for everyone except hardliners on either extreme.

That's partly what happened to this story. Those involved in political factions such as Official Sinn Fein and the British and Irish Communist Organisation agreed on a lot in 1970, but are now pointing in very different directions, and part of the controversy around this story has been as one of the battlegrounds on which those factions dispute some some very different interpretations of history. My concern here has been that the wikipedia article should reflect the very different analyses of it rather than simply trying to prove one argument right over the others, which is how it had been when I first encountered it.

I'm sure that there is a lot more that could and should be done to improve the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I still think Pat is less partisan than he has been portrayed. Remember, whatever real world experienced he has, he is a Newbie here. I myself reread (using the diffs) a substantially original version of Pat's editing ( I personally find the newer spoonfed bullet points at the start patronising). In addition to the element of thuggery highlighted, that representatives of the elected Irish government sactioned neigh ordered, the burning of a home - that made me think. (If I wanted to do a hatchet job/If I wanted to justify the operation) I would include such a statement. A 'sectarian' incident occured. I am not querying its removal but the article pointed the finger at neither the local catholics nor the Pearsons. Anyway, my original aim was to diffuse but, even if I have added fuel to the fire, I am off (probably to investigate Lloyd George's blind eye problem).Aatomic1 (talk) 10:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I can’t give you a “morality guide”, GBH, just The facts about Coolacrease. In a war, the job of combatants – whether in uniform or not – is to defeat the combatants of the other side, generally by killing a sufficient number of them. That is what the Pearsons chose to engage in. Their opponents responded in kind. In the Coolacrease affair, neither side seemed to be very efficient. (Who would WANT to be an efficient killer?) The deaths were not caused by mass paths, fields of hay, or any of the other nonsense sprouting up over at What I heard down at the pub and elsewhere. I will do my best, from time to time, to inject a little reality into the proceedings, but all this was debated much more thoroughly and comprehensively by the great unwashed. Almost everything about this is deplorable. And that’s about as much moralising as you’ll get out of me. I prefer to stick to the facts. Pat Muldowney (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting reply: "facts" is linked to Pat's own construction of the story. There is more than one way of assembling any narrative, and more than one way of interpreting it. Pat is quite entitled to use Indymedia or wherever to present his own case as strongly as possible, but wikipedia also has to represent other viewpoints fairly.

I think, though, that it seems to be fairly widely agreed that as Pat says "almost everything about this is deplorable". Some commentators deplore some bits more than others, and that's why there is a controversy over it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"There is more than one way of assembling any narrative, and more than one way of interpreting it." This sounds suspiciously like the RTÉ cover-up documentary's "two truths" line, which facilitated its devious presentation of falsehood as truth. The Coolacrease affair is essentially quite simple. There is a claim that when the Pearsons fired at the roadblock they fired to miss. This claim is based on the uncorroborated statement of the on-the-run loyalist paramilitary William Stanley who was living with the Pearsons and who may or may not have been present when the Pearsons opened fire. William Stanley (as reported by his son Alan in his 2005 book) described the people at the roadblock as "rebels" - IRA in other words. So it was not a question of mistaking them for vandals. But there is ample corroboration (including corroboration by William Stanley's cousin Oliver, - page 68 of Alan's book) that people were shot at the roadblock. One of them was Mick Heaney, the sentry on duty on the northern approach to the roadblock who was shot in the stomach (close to the groin area, come to think of it) when he issued the standard verbal challenge.

So the Pearsons fired to kill. For the IRA not to retaliate and seek to destroy their attackers at the first opportunity, might be considered to be egregious dereliction of their military duty in time of war. Not being military, I don't know whether court-martial for treachery or cowardice might have been appropriate in that case. The details of that retaliatory action can be agonised over from now to eternity. Personally, if I were shot, I would rather be still alive afterwards, surrounded by family, friends and allies, with at least a chance of survival and recovery. I cannot understand the arm-chair generals who seem to assume the men would actually have wished for the coup-de-grace. Such an elegant and continental expression. I once witnessed at close quarters a man being shot. It was far from elegant. Fortunately the man survived. I doubt very much he would have welcomed a coup-de-grace, no matter how elegant and continental it might seem to armchair generals.

I hope to look through the recent contributions to Moral Outrage Meets Righteous Indignation over the weekend. I undertook to hold off from this article for a while. It's time to restore some balance. Pat Muldowney (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Pat, you have been a highly vocal protagonist on behalf of your intrepretation of events, and that is of course your right, just as it the right of Eoghan Harris, Martin Mansergh and others to take a different view. However, that means that you have a clear conflict of interest with regard to this article. Please respect wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, and desist from making any changes to the article.

Instead, if you believe that the article should be changed, post your proposed changes here for discussion. Any changes which you make may be reverted because of your COI, and brought to the talk page for discussion. Please remember that wikipedia articles must be referenced to reliable sources, which and that "reliable source" are those where content is reviewed by others. That excludes sites such as Indymedia which lack such scrutiny, and of course it excludes wikipedia itself. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review

Recent contributions have been non-neutral and largely unsourced. Here is the text of the article, with inserts indicating how balance can be added.

[edit] Article

The Killings at Coolacrease refers to an incident in the Irish War of Independence which happened in County Offaly in 1921. The Pearsons of Coolacrease were a family loyal to the British government, living in Coolacrease, near Cadamstown, about halfway between Birr and Tullamore in County Offaly. On 30 June 1921, eleven days before the Truce which ended the Irish War of Independence, brothers Richard and Abraham Pearson were shot by a firing squad of the Irish Republican Army (IRA), and their house was burnt. There are several differing interpretations of the event: (1) The Pearsons were murdered for their land as part of an ethnic cleansing drive against Protestants. (2) The Pearsons were militant loyalists who had attacked an IRA party at a roadblock and wounded both of them with gunfire, so their execution was a legitimate war-time military action in defence of the forces of the elected Irish government. (3) The Pearsons were an innocent Protestant farm family, whose land an IRA gang descended on, and carried out an atrocity. (4) The inexperience shown by the Offaly Brigade in neglecting to guard its road-blocking party with sentries was matched by its inability to execute the Pearsons humanely. (6) That the prevalence of injuries to the groin and the lower abdominal area indicates a deliberate intent by the firing squad to mutilate their victims.

There are essentially TWO interpretations. Nuances should be addressed further on, otherwise a reader who is just trying to get a hold of the essentials may be put off right at the beginning by unnecessary complication of the issues. (1), (3) and (5) should be formulated as a single interpretation. It will then be necessary to expand (2). Because if (as it seems to me) interpretation (1,3,5) is false, and if (as it seems to me) the falseness of (1,3,5) is pretty obvious to anyone who takes anything more than a superficial interest, then those who propose an implausible view of this minor if unfortunate affair are part of a propaganda cover-up of the imprisonments, death and injuries (including serious injuries to a retired RIC man) caused by the Pearsons. And they are adding insult to injury by smearing, slandering and demonizing the people targeted by the Pearsons. These further injustices can be linked to (2), in the same way that comparable injustices are linked together in (1,3,5).

This aspect of the historical issue extends right back to 1921, ever since Dublin Castle Propaganda Section brought out an interesting propaganda piece. It is astonishing how consistent the propaganda is, in fundamentals, from 1921, until its recent resurrection. A transcript of the Dublin Castle propaganda item over at The Facts .

A broader agenda of ethnic cleansing is asserted in (1,3,5) in relation to a section of the population. Is there a comparable broad agenda that attaches itself to (2)?. If there is, it should be made explicit in the formulation of (2) in order to preserve neutrality and balance in the article as a whole.

What might that agenda be? To see this, the agenda and purposes in 1921 of the Dublin Castle Propaganda Department should be identified, as this was the first basic expression of (1,3,5). Then the outlook and ideas of Senator Eoghan Harris should be scrutinized, as he is currently the most eloquent exponent of (1,3,5). The points of similarity between these two agenda should be noted. That would provide the “equivalent” agenda to that expressed in (1,3,5), and this is what should be added to (2) in order to preserve balance and overall neutrality in the article.

Obviously, the purpose of the Dublin Castle statement was to demonise those who were implementing the independence mandate of the 1918, 1920 and 1921 elections. The political role of Harris and his followers is to demonise those people and also to undermine and demonise the achievements that they have transmitted to the present. The Coolacrease atrocity propaganda is consistent in this.

If the interpretations are to be listed, then (1) should probably be first in the list. Because the only reason why anybody other than a specialist historian, or a person with a local or family interest, would want to look up this otherwise unimportant incident would be because of the question whether (1) is actually true.

Regarding (4), it seems to accept (1) in a critical way, and bases a statement or the assertion (“no sentries”) which is unsourced and (I believe) false. It is certainly not asserted in any sources that I am aware of. Those sources include the original publications of Paddy Heaney, and the more recent publications of Philip McConway. Alan Stanley has nothing to say about it.

Paddy Heaney’s book and Offaly History Society journal article name the sentries, along with the other six of the road-block party, and he describes the disposition of the party around the road-block, along the road. So (4) is best omitted, unless somebody comes up with a source for the unqualified assertions in it. Or perhaps the issues or assertions of (4) can be addressed somewhere else in the article, if any basis for it can be found.

[edit] The Pearsons of Coolacrease

In 1911 the Pearsons moved from neighbouring County Laois to Coolacrease, where they purchased a 341-acre farm which they worked successfully.^[1][2] They belonged to a religious movement commonly referred to as Cooneyites which, though evolved out of Protestantism, is considered to be distinct from the main Christian groupings such as Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.^[3]

Initially, the Pearsons integrated well into the local community, and their children attended the local Catholic school in Cadamstown.^[4]

Following the Sinn Féin electoral successes in the elections of December 1918^[5] a majority of Irish MPs had declared for an independent Irish Republic [I’m pretty sure I didn’t write it this way in the original article. Strange formulation though: “Following … had declared …”. Why not note that Sinn Féin won the election on an independence manifesto which explicitly committed the party to using ‘any and every means available to render impotent the power of England to hold Ireland in subjection by military force or otherwise’ (Laffan, The Resurrection of Sinn Féin)? Since that’s what actually happened. There is something slightly strangulated about the new formulation. Is it the sound of grinding axes?] and established the First Dail on 21 January 1919. On the same day the affiliated Irish Volunteers started the Irish War of Independence against British forces in Ireland, [This will have to be re-formulated. There had been armed engagements between the Volunteers and the British forces before that. For instance, two Volunteers were killed in Kerry in March 1918. The activities in arms of the Volunteers ceased upon their surrender, followed by imprisonment, at the end of April 1916. But judging by the intermittent clashes as individuals and groups of Volunteers underwent release and re-imprisonment, it appears that the military conflict merely went into intermittent suspension from 1916 onwards.

It was not that the issues which had brought about the Rising had been remedied and gone away. The legitimacy and popular acceptance of the British government were hugely less than before the Rising, and were decreasing continuously. The Redmond party’s credibility was collapsing in tandem. The British government was ever-increasingly committed to its appalling Great War policy, causing ever-increasing disaffection in Ireland. The Ulster armed revolt, which had opened up the era of military conflict, was yielding ever-greater dividends, including the concession by Redmond’s party of the separatist-majority counties of Fermanagh and Tyrone in a panic-stricken deal made soon after the Rising. Once done, there was no possibility of any side going back on this concession, even though this arrangement was probably damaging to the future well-being and good government of both Northern Ireland and the rest of Ireland.

So the military conflict had NOT gone away. Neither side had an electoral mandate. But an electoral mandate was achieved by one side in December 1918 (followed by stronger mandates in January 1920, June 1920 and May 1921) which endorsed that side’s armed activities retrospectively, since they used those activities as a reason to vote for them. And, instead of punishing them electorally for this, the voters rewarded them.

Once the independence mandate was established electorally, there was no excuse for the British government (which was painting itself as being very big on democracy) not to open negotiations with the elected representatives. Its failure to do so meant that the simmering hostilities between the Volunteers and the Crown Forces grew more intense in 1919.

I will try to find some way to express this concisely. Can’t remember at the moment what way I formulated it in the original article and what, if anything might be wrong with that, in terms of balance, neutrality, sourcing or whatever.

I am certain, though, that this political context is highly relevant to the Coolacrease issue. Because if there is some political or other form of legitimacy to the Pearsons’ taking up arms, then that has a bearing on the merits of the interpretations (1) and (2) noted at the commencement of the article.] which developed into a bitter guerrilla conflict in 1920 and 1921.

In County Offaly, where the Pearsons had their farm at Coolacrease, the military conflict was slow to develop, but it intensified in the course of 1921. A number of people, classified by the IRA as spies and informers, [I probably wrote “a number of spies and informers”, but can’t at the moment see a strong reason to change the revised formulation. Except to add the relevant, verifiable and sourceable fact that they were Catholic.] were executed and in Kinnitty, about five miles from Coolacrease, two men of the Royal Irish Constabulary (the militarized police force which was the principal agency of the British state in Ireland) were killed in an ambush by the IRA on 17 May 1921.^[6][7][8] Following a dispute between the Pearsons and local Catholics over a mass path running through the Pearsons’ land, two local IRA men, John Dillon and J. J. Horan, were arrested and jailed.^[1][4][6] [I think I originally had “sectarian dispute” here, using the expression in its standard Irish meaning, as discussed earlier on this page. Perhaps there is some issue in Wikipedia practice here regarding correct use of words. But “dispute” (unqualified) is fine by me.]

[edit] The shooting of the Pearsons

In June 1921 the local Kinnitty Company of the South Offaly No. 2 Brigade IRA was ordered to construct a roadblock as part of county-wide military manoeuvres. They selected a tree for the roadblock on the Birr to Tullamore road, about half way between the Pearsons’ house and the village of Cadamstown. The roadside tree was at the point of boundary between the Pearsons’ and a neighbouring farm. At around midnight the Pearsons came to the roadblock without being challenged [I wonder where this came from? Unless an admissible source can be given this must be removed. And now that the matter has arisen, Paddy Heaney’s account should now be given here. In fact I am unaware of any other source for this aspect, since it is implied in Alan Stanley’s book that his father, who gave him the story, was not one of the Pearson firing party that went down the road to the road-block.] and discharged shotguns.^[1][4] [I’ve been checking the various accounts of the nature of the gunfire. Alan Stanley’s account mentions one shotgun fired once by Richard Pearson, while Paddy Heaney’s accounts describe injuries to three people from both rifle bullets and cartridge shot (i.e. there was rifle fire and shotgun fire from the attacking Pearsons). There are no other sources, that I’m aware of, about this aspect of the affair.

While Paddy Heaney’s work (primarily his book and journal article) is published by Offaly History Societies, Alan Stanley’s book is self-published. Despite Wikipedia’s strictures against this, in my opinion Stanley’s book adds significantly to our understanding, though not in the way Stanley intended. Stanley’s book, regardless of any possible Wikipedia strictures against it, has to be taken into account in any serious investigation of these matters. If there is a problem with it, I think an exception must be made for Stanley’s book. Let’s face it, without Stanley’s book we would not be doing this article. The divergences between Stanley and Heaney are the basis of the debate.] According to one account, the Pearsons fired in the air as a warning to trespassers who were damaging their property.^[2] According to other accounts, they fired at the two IRA tree-fellers and wounded both men, one of them very seriously. The Kinnitty Company had not posted sentries to protect the tree-fellers while they were sawing down the tree. [There is nothing of this nature in Alan Stanley’s book. Either a source for this story of only two men must be given, or it must go. Either way, Paddy Heaney’s detailed account of the names of the eight men, their dispositions, and the actual fighting that took place, should now be given, or at least summarized accurately.]

In this version, the Pearsons had, as resolute loyalists, become hostile to the local community as the war intensified.^[1][4]

[The following was posted to the Talk page by a contributor:

 + Having trouble with this line (it was mentioned earlier): 
 + "An official investigation was held by the military representatives of the elected Irish government" ...  
 +  
 + It needs to be changed. Any ideas? Spleen&ideal (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC) 

It was removed from the Talk page some hours afterwards. And a different contributor went on to edit the article to read as follows, without giving any Summary Reason for the change, and without explaining the reason in the Talk Page:] Thomas Burke, IRA Officer Commanding South Offaly No. 2 Brigade ordered that all three brothers, Richard, Abraham, and Sidney Pearson, were to be executed and their houses destroyed.^[9][10][6] [This indicates to me that other editors are collaborating without sharing their deliberations via the Wikipedia pages, and without giving any reasons, or the necessary references and sources, for the changes they decide on. Since this source (the Burke report), designates the proceedings, by which the execution order was given, as a Court of Inquiry or Officers’ Convention, and since he was acting by the authority of the Commander-in-Chief Richard Mulcahy and the elected government, then the original phrasing should be reverted to, and if there is an argument that the proceedings were not “official”, then it must be given, with appropriate sourcing of the information for that argument.] The Pearsons were not apparently summonsed nor asked for their opinions. [What is the source for this statement? Anyway, what is the point of making it? If the “pro-Pearson” hypothesis of the opening paragraph is correct, why on earth would a bunch of sectarian, land-grabbing, atrocity-mongering, ethnic cleansing thugs give such an invitation? You might as well ask why they didn’t first invite their intended victims out to dine and drink in the best hotel in Tullamore. (I don’t suppose Kinnitty Castle was a venue in those days.) And if the alternative hypothesis is true, then some of the Pearsons were combatants in the war, and all that a commanding officer needed to be sure of was their exact identity and location in order to deal appropriately with the military threat they posed. He would be guilty of gross incompetence or treachery if he tipped off or alerted the enemy in arms.

Of course the statement is very likely to be true. Because if it were not true then the people concerned were living in cloud-cuckoo-land. If either of the two basic understandings of the events is correct, then the statement is simply irrelevant.]

On June 30, about one week after the roadblock affair, a party of thirty or so IRA men arrested Richard and Abraham Pearson while they were making hay in a field near their house. They were taken back to the house and held under guard there with other members of the family — their mother, three sisters, a younger brother, and two female cousins — while the house was prepared to be burned. Their father William Pearson and brother Sidney were away from home at the time. The brothers were shot by a firing squad and the house burned. The two men were fatally injured; [The medical evidence says their wounds were superficial though serious. While the men eventually died of their wounds, the medical evidence does not say that death was inevitable.

According to the medical evidence, death was due to blood loss and shock, even though the same evidence says that no major blood vessels were damaged. That implies that the wounds, in themselves were not fatal wounds. Death did not follow until a number of hours passed. This is consistent with the evidence that no major blood vessels had been damaged, because otherwise death would be much quicker.

It is possible to get a basic sense of the nature of death by blood loss. People who break major blood vessels by cutting their wrists will not take many hours to die. People who partially cut their wrists can be saved if treated in time. In other words if proper medical care had been given the Pearsons might not have slowly bled to death.

Also, this puts the “coup de grace” ideas into context. Though Senator David Norris was horrified when an interviewee on the TV programme said that a coup de grâce should have been applied, many other commentators allege that a large part of the alleged atrocity was failure to administer a coup de grâce .

A person who was seriously attempting suicide by cutting their wrist might or might not welcome a coup de grace. A person who was making a “cry for help” might, if not attended to adequately and in time, slowly bleed to death over many hours. Such a person would probably not welcome a coup de grace.

To balance the statement “fatally injured”, all these points must be argued, with quotes and refs to the medical evidence, and to the appropriate areas of medical science. Otherwise the article loses neutrality.] no coup de grâce was made, so they did not die until some hours later.^[1][4][2] Richard Pearson took six hours to die and his brother Abraham 14 hours.^[11]

[1. The wording is prejudicial, in my opinion. Unless some evidence can be found that the execution party wanted to do anything other than carry out the instructions of their superior officer, some neutral phrasing is needed here. Otherwise extra content must be added to balance the implications of the present phrasing. The Pearsons tried to kill their opponents at the roadblock and failed though Mick Heaney eventually died of the injuries (in the abdominal area - i.e. near the genitals - and various other parts of his body) inflicted by the Pearsons. For the short time that remained to him he never again stood fully erect.

The execution party sought to kill the Pearsons. The fact that the Pearsons did not die immediately is not proof that there was an INTENTION to torture them before death.

2. The real source of the information is the medical reports freely available to the public in the Public records Office in Kew, not to mention the full transcripts published by me, making them even more freely available. Why give as source an opinion column in a newspaper by an author who is said to be associated with the Ulster Political Research Group which is connected to the Ulster Defence Association, a loyalist paramilitary group which has not yet decommissioned its weapons? An author who is said not to have repudiated this connection? Especially as the opinions expressed in the column are heavily biased and prejudicial? ]

Richard and Abraham Pearson were buried without ceremony in an unmarked grave in Killermough Church of Ireland, Co. Laois, almost 30 miles from their home.^[2] [This sentence is likely to be understood as follows. The sectarian, ethnic-cleansing, land-grabbing passion against the Pearsons was so strong that even the dead bodies were driven out of their home area by the implacable hatred of the locals, so that it was not possible even to erect gravestones over them. Sentences practically identical to this one are in many of the accounts which explicitly give this interpretation. I think that this is the purpose and the effect of the sentence in this article. It is not neutral. So it must be balanced by further content to the effect that the Cadamstown locals had nothing to do with executions or burials, that all burial arrangements were made by the British Army and the Pearsons (source: Alan Stanley’s book), that graves are normally unmarked at time of burial, with gravestones usually being erected within a year or two by the family.

William Pearson was in the area, auctioning his property and dealing with business affairs, for two years or so after the burials, by his own account he had £6000 in the bank (around half a million of today’s euros). Yet he neglected to provide the elementary tribute of erecting headstones.

As to the location of burial, Cooneyites did not have established places of worship other than their private homes; nor their own graveyards. The Pearsons’ bodies were taken to the area they grew up in and lived in up to ten years previously, and to a congregation of their relatives, to which they may have been affiliated prior to 1900, before the Cooneyite religious movement started.

Alternatively, for this relatively minor point, it might be simpler to rephrase the existing sentence to neutrality, as follows: “Richard and Abraham Pearson were buried without ceremony in Killermough Church of Ireland, Co. Laois, about 30 miles from their home in the area where they came from ten years earlier. Their graves remained unmarked for some time. ^[2]]

[edit] The aftermath

The family left Ireland and their farm was sold to the Irish Land Commission in 1923. The farm was divided into smaller farms which were allocated to local people.^[1][4][2]

It has been alleged^{[weasel words]} [Somebody placed this tag. Why wasn’t the word simply changed to “said”, “claimed”, “declared”, “argued”, “charged” or the like, if Wikipedia practice has generated some objection to the synonym “alleged”? Nobody could reasonably object to such a change. Personally, I see little difference between these words, and they just have to be scattered about to avoid continual use of the same word.

Could it be that, instead of just making an uncontroversial change, somebody inserted the “weasel-inline” tag, not to improve the article, but in order to plant negativity and suspicion towards the original article in an unsuspecting reader’s or reviewer’s mind? Can such deviousness exist? Dear me, perish the thought. Of course not!] that the Pearsons were innocent of any offence and that they were shot in furtherance of a sectarian land grab, in a context of ethnic and sectarian attacks on Protestant loyalists to promote ethnic cleansing. Part of this argument includes allegations [Curiously this “weasel-word” has not been tagged by editors sensitive to such things. But to forestall any distress, let’s change it to “claims”.] that the executions were deliberately carried out as an atrocity involving sexual mutilation causing prolonged, agonizing death, which the rest of the family were forced to witness.^[2][12]

A counter-argument states that British Courts of Inquiry in Lieu of Inquests were held in Birr on 2 July 1921, and the medical evidence shows there was no genital mutilation, and death was due to shock and blood loss from superficial injuries, indicating a botched execution attempt and inadequate medical attention. A summarized RIC report from the County Inspector of Queen's County (Laois) confirms that the Pearsons were shot because of their attack on the IRA men at the roadblock. This latter point has been questioned by those who argue that there was no RIC investigation. This interpretation summarises the British army correspondence - 5th Division Curragh Camp (not an RIC report) as "collecting rumours".^[13] [If letters to newspapers are to be used as sources, then this article cannot be selective about that. There were countering replies to all such letters, including this one. For each and every such letter or opinion-piece quotation the countering publication must also be summarized and referenced in order to re-assert neutrality.]

The above counter-argument has in turn been challenged on both points. [And all such challenges have been responded to, so if one side of the argument is to be included in this article, so must the other side.] Some argue^[14] that the medical evidence of Medical Practitioner Dr Frederick William Woods contradicts the belief that the medical evidence showed there was no genital mutilation, and that death was not due to superficial injuries. Dr Woods stated at the Court of Enquiry held at Crinkle Military Barracks, Birr, Co. Offaly, 2 July 1921:

"In my opinion the cause of death was shock and sudden haemorrhage as a result of gunshot wounds. The fatal wound in my opinion was that on the groin" and later "I found the deceased (Abraham Pearson) lying there suffering from gunshot wounds...I...found extensive wounds on left cheek, left shoulder, left thigh and lower third of left leg. In addition there was a wound through the abdomen. The latter wound had an entrance at the front and appeared to have its exit at the lower part of the back, fracturing the lower part of the spinal column. In my opinion death resulted from shock due to gunshot wounds".^[15]

[There can be no selective quoting or cherry-picking of evidence. All such evidence can now be read by anyone, without the time and cost of going over to the Public Records Office in London, because I have made it publicly available. All of it – no withholding, no concealing, no cherry-picking. And if one interpretation of the evidence is to be given, then the other interpretations must also be given, with context and balance. Certainly this article can go through this medical evidence word by word, including where the doctor said the wound was to the “right” groin, and tease out whether “right groin” means “genitals”, or whether it means the place where the right thigh meets the torso.

Dublin Castle Statement 1029, of July 9 1921, says: The shooting was carried out so that both men should die in agony, both being hit in the stomach and thighs. If there had been injury to the genitals, how realistic is it to suppose that such a thing would not have been highlighted in this statement? It would have been trumpeted to the heavens on high. The thigh wound of Richard Pearson that the statement mentions is possibly one and the same as the right groin wound of the medical report.

The distinction between groin and genitals has in turn been challenged. In the Irish Times, David Adams asked:

Were the Pearson brothers shot in the groin or the genitals? What does it matter? [Here Adams is saying that he does not care whether the groin and genitals are the same. So this is NOT a “challenge to the distinction”.] The real question is, if it wasn't deliberate, how did so many gunmen (about 30) manage to shoot the men only in their lower abdomens?^[16]

[According to Paddy Heaney’s accounts of the IRA party there were about 30 men, most of whom were on guard at various points near the house, but away from the house, with about ten (not 30) at the house. The gunshot wounds were spread from head to lower leg, one to right groin (Richard Pearson), one to the abdomen (Abraham Pearson). From inspections, most of the shots hit the wall. So were most of them deliberately trying to miss the target and hit the wall?

If these newspaper opinions are to be quoted in the article, then their obvious inaccuracies must be pointed out, and the opposing newspaper opinions also must be quoted and any inaccuracies or deviations from the recorded facts must be similarly described. And if it is argued that the Pearsons’ injuries, if not to the genitals, were suspiciously close, then the same can be equally argued about Mick Heaney, the man the Pearsons shot a week earlier. Though Heaney survived for a while before succumbing to his abdominal wounds, it was not for long. And his injuries were such that he never again could stand erect.]

Others also challenge the assumption that a "summarized RIC report from the County Inspector of Queen's County (Laois) confirms that the Pearsons were shot because of their attack on the IRA men at the roadblock". They argue that there was no RIC investigation. The report cited as evidence of an RIC investigation is they say, a British army correspondence (5th Division Curragh Camp) that speculates on the reasons for the Pearson killings. It was filed after the Court of Inquiry had deliberated on July 2 in Birr. Titled 'The Coolacrease Murders 30.6.21 -- Possible Motives', the first part of the document speculates that the Pearsons were targeted for their land. Part two then states:

"It is said by the CI (County Inspector) Queen's County that the two Pearson boys a few days previously had seen two men felling a tree on their land adjoining the road. Had told the men concerned to go away and when they refused had fetched two guns and fired and wounded two Sinn Feiners, one of whom is believed died."

The next sentence reads:

"It is further rumoured when the farm house was burning two guns fell out of the roof."

It is argued that the army was simply collating the rumours surrounding the deaths of the Pearsons (nobody died that night). Not only were these rumours never investigated, [This is a positive assertion. Unless there is a source for it, it must be removed. Furthermore, for neutrality, the well-sourced reasons why it is MOST UNLIKELY that the RIC did NOT try to find out (or “investigate”) what happened at Coolacrease on the day of the executions and the preceding period when the road-block was attacked. The Dublin Castle Statement of July 9 says that the RIC were investigating. Is it really likely that they would not investigate a serious injury to one of their retired colleagues in a violent armed attack?] the 'Possible Motives' document did not form part of the Court of Inquiry.^[13]

[The British Army report of an RIC statement is included with the Court of Inquiry papers. Whether it is part of the Army Court of Inquiry papers, or simply attached to those papers, makes absolutely no difference to the meaning of this Army report of the RIC statement. The system of Military Courts of Inquiry in lieu of Inquests was instituted by the British Military Government when, for war reasons, it suppressed the civil Coroners’ Courts. Their job was to legally establish the immediate cause of death, not to examine what the dead person might have been doing in the weeks before death. The Pearsons’ attack on the road-block was a separate incident from the executions. The British Army report of the RIC statement about the roadblock is included with the British Army Court of Inquiry papers, indicating that the British Army thought that the two events were related.

If the preceding argument is included in this article then the (sourceable) further explanation must also be included.] While family members claimed to have observed the shootings, they also testified they were moved to the Grove, a wooded location some distance from the house, where they would have been unable to witness the shootings. The latter is confirmed in a statement by Michael Cordial, an IRA Battalion Quartermaster and member of an Active Service Unit, who was present at the executions.^{[17][6][7][8]}

There is an opposing interpretation of this event. It has been pointed out that (under oath) Ethel Pearson, in a sworn statement to the Court of Inquiry, said:

"I saw the raiders search my brothers, and place them against the wall of the barn and shoot them."

Tilly Pearson stated:

"They placed my brothers shortly afterwards against the wall of the barn and shot them. When they fell, they shot them again."^[13]

[This has also been countered. The Pearson sisters gave contradictory evidence. If they were taken to the Grove they could not have seen the executions. If they could see the shootings, they could not have been in the Grove. This contradiction must now be incorporated into the article in order to preserve neutrality.

In a written and signed statement to the British government’s Grants Committee, William Pearson declared that there were 500 IRA raiders, and told various other equally obvious lies about the executions and about his land and business affairs. This has some bearing on the amount of trust that should be put in the accounts of the executions given by the Pearsons, and may give some understanding of why the evidence given by the Pearsons to the British Military Court is contradictory.

The Pearson sisters say they witnessed the executions but NOT that they were FORCED to witness them. The contradiction in their testimony renders it unreliable. Corroboration of the first part of their testimony (that they were taken away to the Grove) is provided by the Witness Statement of IRA Quarter-master Michael Cordial, who was present. There is no Witness Corroboration of the second part of their testimony.

Their brother David Pearson was present, and in his one and only written account of the executions in 1983 (see Alan Stanley’s book) he fails to corroborate it, though he mentions much less significant aspects such as damage allegedly caused to a tractor.

Since this argument has now been brought into the Wikipedia article, we must go the whole hog, and thrash out every argument. Otherwise we lose neutrality.] On the land grab issue, one version of the episode says that, due to squatting and boycott, the Pearsons had to dispose of their farm for less than half its value.^[2] Other accounts describe the Pearsons using first the Republican courts for routine civil purposes, and later the Irish Free State courts to obtain compensation for damages, as they were entitled to do.^[4] [It is argued that since the legal systems of, first the Republic, and, second, the Free State were available to the Pearsons and successfully used by them for matters ranging from stolen pigs to major compensation, there must be doubts about the claims of William, Sidney and David Pearson (refs Grants Committee Applications, 1983 letter in Stanley’s book) of large-scale illegal activities successfully perpetrated against them.] It is further argued that the price they received for their farm in 1923 was more than double the amount they paid for it in 1911.^[18] It is argued that aspects of William Pearson’s application for financial compensation from the British Government’s Irish Grants Committee involved numerous distortions and fraudulent claims.^[7]

Evidence that the land had multiplied in value from the original £2000 purchase price paid by William Pearson came in the form of a letter from William Percy stating he had offered Pearson £10,000 for the land. The Grants Committee file also contains a letter of valuation from local auctioneers valuing the Pearson land at £17,000. William Percy tried to buy the Pearson’s farm in 1921, but was stopped from doing so by the local IRA.

"The price I offered was 10,000 and I might have gone higher only the people would not allow any outsider to purchase the land. I was not allowed to close the bargain".^[19]

In the end the Pearsons sold the land to the Land Commission for around £5000.^[2] [It is argued against this that land prices were falling rather than rising at that time (Sources , quotes etc) so that an increase of value of between 500 per cent and 900 per cent is highly implausible; and it is argued that the contemporary value of land was between £5 and £10 per acre (Sources), giving a valuation of £1700 to £3400 for the farm. Another reason for doubting these estimates is the number of what are claimed to be fraudulent statements in the Pearsons’ applications to the Grants Committee, (Quotes, refs)]

[edit] Debate

On 23 October 2007, the Irish broadcasting agency RTÉ broadcast a controversial television documentary The Killings at Coolacrease which portrayed the events as a sectarian atrocity resulting from a dispute over land.^[20] The editorial of a popular Irish history journal criticized the RTÉ documentary as a text-book example of media spin.^[21]

Others within the Irish media welcomed the broadcast of the documentary [Opinion in the Irish media was divided about the documentary. Referenced quotes critical of the documentary, from Village, Sunday Business Post, Irish Times, Examiner, Sunday Independent, and various Offaly and other newspapers – these must be given here in order to achieve neutrality and balance.]

^{[22][23][24][25][26]} and its effort to "uncover the truth behind the murder of two Protestant brothers by ...[the]... IRA".^[23] Senator Eoghan Harris commented:

"Nothing can disturb the starkness of 30 men going into a farmhouse and pulling two young men out and shooting them in the groin and then shooting them in the buttocks... I believe the plain people of Ireland believe that something evil was done that day."^[26]

[For balance, Harris’s famous quote expressing his contempt for mere facts, or “factualism disease”, will have to be given here.] On 24 October 2007, independent Senator David Norris addressed the controversy during the Order of Business in the Irish Senate, calling it a "very remarkable programme".^[27] He said:

"I was very ashamed by some of the things that were said. There was a horrible and nasty, small minded bestial attempt to smear retrospectively the Pearson family and I deplore that…To hear a young historian say the mistake was that they did not finish them off is repulsive in the extreme. I could hardly believe what I was hearing".^[27]

[Like some of the contributors to this article, other commentators have expressed CRITICISM of the IRA for FAILING to “finish them off”. (Quotes, references.) These must now be added here for neutrality and balance.]

On 7 January 2008, Fianna Fáil politician and historian Martin Mansergh commenting on the documentary, questioned whether the treatment meted out to the Pearsons met the standard of avoiding ‘wanton cruelties’ and believed that the justification of military necessity was doubtful in the case of Coolacrease.^[28] [ http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2008/01/07/story51922.asp Other parts of this letter need to be published, for balance. For instance: “The charge that the programme was insufficiently nuanced may well be true”. Defects in Martin Mansergh’s position were argued in subsequent letters published in the Examiner, and these should be appropriately quoted and referenced for balance. According to the Wikipedia link Martin Mansergh given above, Mansergh’s profession was civil servant, not historian as stated above. The Wikipedia biography says he was educated to Diploma standard in philosophy, but did not complete his course in History of Art. There may be confusion here with his father, Nicholas Mansergh, who WAS a historian.]

On 25 February 2008, the Broadcasting Complaints Commission (BCC), an independent statutory body, with the responsibility to deal with all broadcasting complaints concerning radio and television broadcasters licensed within the Republic of Ireland, considered seven formal complaints regarding RTÉ's Hidden History programme, The Killings of Coolacrease. Claims that the documentary was "unbalanced and misleading", that important evidence was omitted, that there were "inaccurate facts amounting to an attack on a person’s reputation or honour" and that there was "unacceptable suppression of pertinent source material" were all rejected by the BCC.^[19]

[1. It is claimed that the BCC’s use of term “murder” in description of the events in the opening paragraph of its decision is evidence that the BCC was biased on the side of First Interpretation of the events (Quote, Ref).

2. The BCC stated that it was making no judgement on the actual historic events (Quote, Ref), only on certain aspects of the production.

3. It was claimed that RTÉ asserted falsely to the BCC that the production had a Consultant Historian (Quote, Ref), but that the named academic historian denied this assertion (Quote, Ref). The only other academic historian employed by the production as researcher has published his concerns about the historical validity and reliability of the documentary (Quote, Ref).]

One of the complainants was Dr Pat Muldowney, an academic mathematician and amateur historian, whose complaints to the BCC had included the programme's failure to include any footage of an interview recorded with him. [I am not an historian, amateur or otherwise, and have never claimed to be. I am happy to be described as a mathematician. No source is given for the first part of the sentence. Nor for the second part, come to think of it. Must be removed unless sources are provided. And then there must be a balancing statement of my (published, sourceable) denial of the FALSE allegation that I am ANY kind of a historian.

The first part of the sentence can be viewed as prejudicial, in that it might be possible to make a deduction from it that I misrepresented myself in order to give greater credibility to my opinions. Because it can be argued that this was the purpose of including this part of the sentence, it should be removed. My interest in the Coolacrease issue is in my capacity of a citizen of the state.

Other contributors to the issue and/or to the Wikipedia article may or may not be historians, amateur or otherwise, and I do not know what their motivation is, or whether they would describe themselves as historians, professional or amateur. It is unlikely I will ever know since, unlike me, they choose to conceal their identities. Presumably they share my interest in this particular issue. Otherwise, why would they be writing about it, just as I am?

Regarding the second part of the sentence (that my complaint to the BCC was about my interview not being broadcast), no source is given for this assertion. My correspondence to the BCC includes the complaint that the programme omitted important evidence. It specifically states that I had NO complaint about not being included in the broadcast. (Quote, Ref).] In correspondence with RTÉ, he had described the Pearsons as 'Amish from Hell', as 'extreme mercenary types driven by insatiable desire for land and money' and as 'threatening terrified women and children with firearms'. He wrote of the Pearsons that 'apart from their grasping and bigoted qualities, they were rather unremarkable people, best forgotten about'.^[13] [No sources given. I could supply these in order to keep these points in the article, and go on to quote and reference the facts which lead to these unpleasant descriptions. In principle it would be better not to have to delve into the more sordid aspects, but instead allow the healing balm of oblivion to do its work. In plain language, let the dead rest in peace, forget about their faults; and hope that our own descendants will take the same charitable and forgiving attitude to our faults and failings whenever, as the unremarkable people most of us are, we finally depart the scene.

This part of my correspondence with RTÉ is unpublished. So how did the editor happen to obtain it in order to put it into this article? Well, the material was published by me at Indymedia debate http://www.indymedia.ie/article/84547 According to the Edit History of the article, the quotes were posted to the article at 02:21, 24 April 2008 by the same person who has been instructing me on this Discussion Page that Wikipedia rules forbid me to quote anything in Indymedia. Or have I got it wrong? Maybe this person can explain all these curious inconsistencies?

That still leaves the problem of how this person knows what was in unpublished correspondence that I had with RTÉ. Of course, since I published those comments somewhere else, I’m happy to have them in the public domain. But like the other recent contributors to the article, these quotes have been taken out of the context in which they were made. In other words, preducially SELECTIVE quotation which will now have to be expanded, corrected, balanced. By removing them from their context, the quotes are deliberately made to seem like stupid, thoughtless, groundless, abuse.

As they stand, the effect of these unsourced statements could be to falsely imply that (1) my interpretation of the 1921 events, and (2) my criticism of the TV programme, are based on an irrational dislike or hostility to the Pearsons, and are therefore of no merit.

In order to balance this false implication, more of the context, explanation and significance of these statements must be given (with quotes and refs, instances of Pearsons’ use of firearms, incidents of religious/political intolerance, and aspects of their business practices, in order to illustrate their non-saintly and all-too-human and earthly characteristics. To be contrasted with characterizations (quotes, refs) of the Pearsons as exceptionally and unusually pious, pacific and “good”.

Otherwise this paragraph should be removed from the article. For the moment I prefer to take this latter course. But if inclusion is insisted upon, then this rather unpleasant task will have to be undertaken in order to preserve neutrality. After all, when writing for Wikipedia, we all want to preserve neutrality here, don’t we?]

These allegations [weasel-word?] against the Pearson family and the Protestant sect, [I made statements denying that the Pearsons were non-violent and pacifist in their conduct, giving instances such as use of firearms against human beings (Quotes, refs).

Cooneyites describe themselves as NOT being Protestant (Quotes, refs). The term “sect” should be avoided. Most religious faiths find it offensive. The term “sectarian” was challenged and removed in earlier version of this article, even though, in Ireland, it is standard description (Refs news broadcasts, newspapers, books) for certain kinds of inter-communal conduct.] the Cooneyites (in England during WWI, Cooneyite preachers were granted conscientious objector status in keeping with their apolitical beliefs) [If this is to be included, then a fuller account (with quotes and refs) must also be given of, for instance, the status of Cooneyite preachers as “apostles” or “bishops”. In reality the preachers were clergymen – even though the pure Cooneyite doctrine was averse to formal clergy status – and therefore exempt from military service. Whatever the significance of these fairly complex doctrinal issues, if this section is included it will, for balance, have to be expanded to present the argument (quotes, refs) of how, in contrast to any claim of being apolitical, or to any possible religious doctrine of pacifism or non-violence, the Pearsons themselves described themselves as political in the sense of “staunch unionist” (quote, ref), as being active in that capacity (quote, ref), and they were prepared to engage in armed combat against those they perceived as their enemies or “rebels” (quote, ref).] have been challenged as "unfounded".^[13]

[edit] Conclusions

[The way the article has been edited over the past few weeks has made it a complete mess in terms of neutrality and sourcing. One way to restore it to neutrality it would be to expand it along the lines described above.

Or the article could be brought to something like its original scope. That is, concentrating on its main theme of the verifiable 1921 events, but perhaps touching upon the controversy surrounding the recent TV programme.

Firstly, the latter is current affairs, while this article is in the categories of Irish War of Independence and Offaly History. The only reason for a brief mention of the TV programme is because the ensuing controversy could be a reason why a reader might decide to access this Wikipedia article about the 1921 affair.

Secondly, the current controversy is ongoing, and may continue until much more of the kind of material on which a Wikipedia history article is properly based – secondary sources – becomes available. At the moment all we’ve got is Philip McConway’s articles; though I understand he is still doing extensive research on the subject, and a much clearer picture seems to be emerging which will enable the basic Wikipedia article to be extended onto a firmer basis.

Certainly it is quite possible to develop the article into the current affairs area (TV programme, controversy etc etc). I believe any such development would have to proper sourcing and balance added to produce a neutral account. If that happens I will contribute along the lines indicated above.

Some further points. A contributor to this Talk Page mentioned something to the effect that they felt patronized by the bullet-list of alternative interpretations in the Introductory section of the article. So it may be better just to give the account, so the reader becomes aware of the basic facts on which interpretations might be based, and at the end list some alternative interpretations. Otherwise a reader might feel they were being led by the nose.

The bit about interpretation could, in some ways, be the most difficult to write. For instance, if the “ethnic cleansing” bit is developed, then some source etc. will have to be quoted. There is nothing in the secondary sources sphere to quote from or cite, as far as I know. Likewise “land-grabbing”. No problem with “sectarian atrocity” – there are deaths (Mick Heaney on one side, the Pearsons on the other), and differences of religious faith. Similarly, no problem with the opposite interpretation: there was an elected government engaged in armed conflict with another government, and there is Pearson involvement in this conflict.

However there are various sub-plots and alternative scenarios. One of them involves some version of number (4) in the initial list of interpretations above. Here it is: The Pearsons got involved in paramilitary action against the elected government. But a rogue section of that government’s forces took advantage of the otherwise legitimate action ordered against the Pearsons in order to promote (sectarian atrocity, land-grabbing, ethnic cleansing, …).

Here’s another one: The Pearsons were totally innocent of any paramilitary intention, mistakenly got involved in some routine altercation with Volunteers who (unknown to the Pearsons) happened to be on military duty. But the Pearsons had never intended to hurt anyone or to oppose the elected government. But the Irish authorities misread the situation and, for the best of military intentions and reasons, mistakenly ordered their execution. A miscarriage of justice, in other words.

One could continue to permute these possibilities to one’s hearts content. But in the end it is the interpretations of Alan Stanley and Paddy Heaney that are actually in contention, and they are the ones that matter. (I can imagine either Stanley or Heaney chuckling in amusement at the condescension and superiority of the following: “all we appear to have are accounts by partisan local historians and memoirs” (Talk Page above, 15:01, 22 April 2008).)

The interpretations could come at the end of the article, so the reader is not prompted towards interpretation before reading the basic account in the body of the article.

In broader terms, the two most important features of the case are the closely related ethnic cleansing and land-grab issues, and no version of this article has addressed either of these issues other than “in passing”, so to speak. Probably that is all that it is possible to do at this stage until good secondary sources become available, which will probably be fairly soon. What will be easiest to resolve decisively, and quite soon, is the land-grab question regarding Coolacrease, since very good documentation is available. I will soon be putting this into the public domain over at The Facts about Coolacrease.

Finally, an early contribution to this Talk Page says: “So far as I can see, there is not enough available in reliable sources for anything other than a brief and stubby article on the actual history, with a carefully neutral acknowledgement of the debate following the RTE program. The rest would not be about the history itself, but about the highly public historiographical controversy which followed the RTE program.” (Talk Page above, 15:01, 22 April 2008).

I understand that good secondary sources will soon be available. But if, at this point, the article now goes beyond the basic level, then, as demonstrated in this Review, there can be no selectivity or cherry-picking, or telling only one side.

In a manner of speaking, it’s all or nothing.]

[edit] Bibliography

1. Paddy Heaney, At the Foot of Slieve Bloom, 2002.
2. Pat Muldowney, The Pearson Executions in Co. Offaly 1921, Aubane Historical Society, 2007.
3. Doug & Helen Parker, The Secret Sect, 1982.
4. Alan Stanley, I met Murder on the way, 2005.

[edit] References

Pat Muldowney (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revision

It has been an eye-opener to review the article over the weekend. Apart from some technical editing, every change to my original piece has been on one side only. That makes me the only contributor to try to present both sides of the argument. And the vast majority of the extensive changes have been made without noting any Summary Reason, and without presenting any explanation for the changes here on the Talk Page.

So I hope to be excused for not taking the many instructions of one of the pseudonymous (and recently arrived) contributors too seriously.

Near the top of this Talk Page the following appears: “So far as I can see, there is not enough available in reliable sources for anything other than a brief and stubby article on the actual history, with a carefully neutral acknowledgement of the debate following the RTE program. The rest would not be about the history itself, but about the highly public historiographical controversy which followed the RTE program.” (Talk Page above, 15:01, 22 April 2008).

In response I said there that I thought there was some sense in the proposals to restrict the article to a basic account, giving the agreed facts plus an indication or outline of two opposing interpretations of what actually happened in 1921. Pending the expected arrival of secondary sources of information (of the kind favoured for Wikipedia articles) to add to the existing publications of TCD historian Philip McConway, who was one of the two Researchers for the recent TV programme about Coolacrease.

And furthermore I thought there was sense in the same Talk Page proposals for making only a brief reference to the controversy about the TV programme; a controversy which, in reality, is an ongoing current event, not in the Article Category of 1921 history, but in the present.

So, just as in my original version of the article, I am including just a brief mention of the TV programme plus ensuing controversy with space for equal number of citations of the media controversy (both pro and anti). The cited RTÉ announcement is in the “atrocity, land-grab, murder” camp, and the BCC decision ruled in its favour. Without letting the article spiral off into the readers’ letters/opinion columns again, there is still room for a couple more citations in that vein. The Dublin Castle Statement was the first significant expression of that view, and I’ve given a link to a full transcript of it.

The advantage of the BCC link (which was not available in my first draft) is that it gives, on-line, (1) the complaints, (2) the RTÉ and Producer’s responses, and (3) the BCC ruling, all fully readable online and in a single citation. Another advantage is that the BCC link to (2) gives practically all the points contained in the recent contributions to the article, but in a more coherent form, and without so many errors

I have not yet added in any of the recent sources or articles to cite in support of the legitimacy of the executions, and opposed to the TV programme. But there are lots to choose from, it will be easy to find three or four good ones.

Regarding the basic story, I’ve practically restricted it to the uncut evidence of witnesses, plus the two all-important statements of those acting officially in the name of the Irish Government and the British Government in Ireland (Dublin Castle).

The controversial theories about land-grabbing etc. are still hotly contested and can’t be adequately described yet in this context. Though a complete resolution of the land controversy is in sight, some of the other issues will take longer.

This gives the two sides of the ongoing contemporary controversy in a balanced way without impinging too much on the historic 1921 subject of the article.

It avoids having the “contemporary tail” wagging the “historic dog” in the manner of the more recent contributions to this Wikipedia article..

It avoids having a long, dreary, line-by-line, argument about which of the numerous Letters Column and Opinion Column items (both pro- and anti-) should or should not be cited in this article; which parts should or should not be quoted; and so on ad nauseam. These are the kind of things the recent contributors to this article have quoted – but ALL on one side only of the debate.

I’ve scanned through the media debate and controversy yet again, and there is NO ACTUAL REPORTING of the issues, except in the local Offaly press. Lots of opinion, some of it verging on the hysterical – “like holocaust deniers”, for example.

Pat Muldowney (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Pat, you just made a huge edit to the article, which amounts to a substantial rewrite. I have reverted that change in toto without prejudice to any individual parts of it, because the individual components should be discussed.

To discuss those individual components, your long annotated version of the article above is a very helpful explanation of your reasoning. However, its length makes is very hard to use as the basis for an online discussion, because the individual points will get lost. I suggest that to discuss these changes, we break it up by copying it into a number of subsections, below, and discuss them one at a time. There are some suggestions which I like the look of, and some that I don't, and other editors may be similarly inclined to view your changes as "good in parts".

However, there are a few meta-points which I want to make first, and which need to be cleared up before any such discussion. The first is that it is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia to assume good faith and not to make personal attacks. You have made a number of serious attacks above on other editors, including:

• using terms such as "hysterical" and "holocaust deniers" which serve no purpose other to abuse other editors and/or attach negative labels to those public commentators who disagree with your interpretations
• alleging (with heavy sarcasm) that the use of the tag ^{[weasel words]} was done "not to improve the article, but in order to plant negativity and suspicion towards the original article in an unsuspecting reader’s or reviewer’s mind?" That's utterly unfounded, as you could see if you follow the link, which takes you to Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. The principle there is simple "if there is a genuine opinion make the preface more specific"; the issue here is about clearly identifying who makes what claims. Not only did you apparently fail to read the linked guideline, you also appear not have noticed that I had attached the "weasel" tag to the sentence which began "It has been alleged that the Pearsons were innocent of any offence". The article should make clear who is making such a claim, not use a vague passive voice ... and yet you appear to class the adding of this stylistic tag as an act hostile to your view, when it was actually seeking more precise attribution of a vague claim of "innocence" for both people whose execution you defend.
  I added the weasel tags in two edits ([2], [3]), the second of which was marked with an edit summary "more weasel tags, but more needed". Yet you query the omission of a weasel tag later in the paragraph, saying "Curiously this “weasel-word” has not been tagged by editors sensitive to such things". Nothing curious at all; there are many of places in the article where such tags are needed, and I didn't get all of them, but the whole section of the article was tagged as weaselly. There were plenty of good faith interpretations of that tag, yet you chose to infer bad faith.
• You say that "every change to my original piece has been on one side only. Pat, I spent quite a lot of time going through every article which I could find on this subject in the major Irish newspaper websites, and tried to add citations to as many as possible the relevant references. I doubt I got all of them, but I'm quite satisfied that what I added reflects the balance of commentary in those sources. If you are prepared to start assuming good faith and to stop making personal attacks, we can discuss the balance of such coverage, but beforehand you really should read WP:NPOV. Your suggestion that "pro" and "anti" sources should be cited in equal numbers is not what is recommended by the wikipedia policy: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". Note that last bit, in proportion to the prominence. So in this article we should check the relative prominence, not assign some arbitrary balance between two views.

More bad faith: you note that "This indicates to me that other editors are collaborating without sharing their deliberations via the Wikipedia pages, and without giving any reasons, or the necessary references and sources, for the changes they decide on". Your evidence for that is is a change suggested on the article's talk page was implemented by another editor. Sure, there may be other discussions going on (not that I know of, but I have no access to others' mailboxes) ... but the simplest explanation is simply that one editor acted on another's public suggestion. Poor practice not to comment, poor practice not to use an edit summary, but it happens all the time without the conspiracy you allege.

There are many other similar issues, but the point most troubling to me personally is where you point to the quote from your correspondence with RTE, which I added in this edit. and say "This part of my correspondence with RTÉ is unpublished. So how did the editor happen to obtain it in order to put it into this article?" .. and continue "That still leaves the problem of how this person knows what was in unpublished correspondence that I had with RTÉ". Pat, there is no problem at all, and no need to follow up your suggestion of using your own self-published account: the quotes were taken from Niamh Sammon's letter to The Sunday Independent, published on 25 November 2005: "Unfounded claims about killings". They are clearly footnoted to that source, and the footnote links to the articles -- you even copied the reference across to the talk page.

For the record, I have no involvement with this article other than as editor of wikipedia who stumbled across it: I am an Irish citizen living outside Ireland, and I hadn't even heard of Coolacrease until I came across this article. I have no sources on this story other than those I have read online, no contact with RTE or with any of the protagonists in the debate, and no relationship with any of them; in fact, I have had no discussions at all with anyone about this subject other that the discussions here on wikipedia. To imply otherwise is a quite unacceptable personal attack, and I will now take further action on it.

You take a great offence of the description of you (again, added by me) as an "amateur historian". However, you acknowledge that you are not a professional historian, yet yourself added to bibliography of this article the entry: "Pat Muldowney, The Pearson Executions in Co. Offaly 1921, Aubane Historical Society". Why, therefore is it unreasonable to describe you as an amateur historian, ? We can even reference the description to reliable sources, e.g. The Independent? It can of course be countered with your denial that you are "any kind of historian" if you wish, but any such denial should probably be accompanied by a link such as this so that readers can draw their own conclusions.

My sole concern is that an article on wikipedia should be neutral: that it should present both sides of the debate, and that its content should not be determined by one person who has taken a prominently partisan position in the public controversy. You say in your conclusions above that "the way the article has been edited over the past few weeks has made it a complete mess in terms of neutrality" ... but the problem with that statement is that you, as a partisan in the public debate, are trying to set yourself up as arbiter of neutrality.

Pat, you can't wear both hats: you can't be both the prolific critic of the RTE documentary and an arbiter of the neutrality of the article on the subject of that documentary (that's why I pointed you to WP:COI early on in the proceedings). Both roles are fine, but it's simply not plausible to do both, particularly when you have a clear interest and in defending your own reputation in this matter. (That interest is quite legitimate, but it means that you cannot claim to be neutral in this matter).

However, the fact that you have now chosen to attack the integrity of other editors means that at this stage, I am not going to engage in further debate with you about the article until I see what happens in response to complaints which I will lodge within the next few days about your conduct wrt this article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

oops! Bad edit summary time :(

In my long comment above, I used the edit summary "Reply to Pat Muldowney : you have just made a series of grave allegations of good faith". I meant of course that you had made a series of grave allegations of 'breaches of' good faith. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggested in the first contribution to this discussion (top of Talk Page) that the article had drifted off in the direction of a common or garden blog, with numerous recitations of media chit-chat about a television documentary, and little actual history. Sorry I have not been able, as yet (pressure of work), to carry out my promise to check the sources etc and report. But the ideas of BrownHairedGirl in reply to me were sound, even though BHG is now saying that the departure from the historic category is ok. The deletions I mentioned then have been done in Pat Muldowney's recent version. Also, some weaknesses in his original article are corrected. In my opinion this article should not have been reverted. Knockanore (talk) 10:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Knockanore, I did originally agree with your proposal ... but as you can see from my further comments, the more I looked at this article and did my research on the wider topic, the more it became clear that much (maybe even most) of the significance is this event is not historical but historiographical, in that it has become a focus for a wider debate about the war of independence. As I noted on 22 April, "So far as I can see, there is not enough available in reliable sources for anything other than a brief and stubby article on the actual history, with a carefully neutral acknowledgement of the debate following the RTE program. The rest would not be about the history itself, but about the highly public historiogrphical controversy which followed the RTE program."

As above, I have not rejected Pat's changes in toto, but rather asked that they be considered one at a time. It is also clearly in breach of WP:COI for a protagonist in the public debate to make a whole series of bad faith attacks on on other editors, whilst trying to restructure the article to support his own view.

I am also concerned that so many of those who have either edited this article or contributed on its talk page with this article have no other track record of editing on wikipedia. We all have to start somewhere, but these contributors show a noticeable lack of experience in working with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (see Wikipedia:Single-purpose account). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is the Killings at Coolacrease If a new article The Controversy surrounding the TV programme about the Killings at Coolacrease is started I think that would be a COI. Aatomic1 (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, your reply to my original suggestion was: "Please do it, and don't feel obliged to wait" (- to wait until I had read more of the material that was being quoted from in this Wikipedia article). I have now investigated a good deal of that material, and having done so, my understanding of Pat Muldowney's remarks, about "hysterical" commentary - such as describing people who criticised the RTE Coolacrease documentary as being "like holocaust deniers", is that such statements were made by prominent press and media defenders of the RTE programme. In fact Eoghan Harris said exactly that on the Joe Duffy Liveline programme on RTE radio after the documentary was shown. Pat Muldowney's point made earlier on this page, that the media commentariat frenzy is an obstacle to patient digging out of the actual history, is a valid one. I got no sense at all that his comment about "hysteria" was directed at anything or anyone other than the opinion columns and letters pages. "Like holocaust deniers" is a direct quote from Eoghan Harris, whose statements are being put into this article. Knockanore (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Theb

I am not getting in to an edit war but where is the WP:BLP violation and on whom that warrants your 3rd reversion on this article. You are well aware of the WP:3RR rule so please stop edit warring. BigDunc (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The revisions are not in category of the article. Their relevance to the history of events in 1921 is tenuous. If they are not neutral, they should either be removed or expanded for balance. Knockanore (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The most recent editor says that revisions for neutrality should be discussed on the Talk Page. That particular editor made a great many revisions, without giving any reasons at all, never mind presenting them, with reasons, on the Talk Page.

Pat Muldowney presented detailed reasons for his recent edit here on the Talk Page. Only one editor responded on the Talk Page, and while acknowledging the significance of the reasons, ruled them out of order. Why? Because they were presented by Pat Muldowney!

So no valid reasons have been given why his edits should not be accepted.

Though he has remedied some of the defects of his original article, I am not entirely happy with Muldowney’s new version. For one thing, I do not think there should be any reference at all to the recent television programme.

That TV programme is an ongoing business project, with considerable investment at stake, depending on whether other broadcasting agencies purchase it. Some of the recent edits look suspiciously like product marketing. Since, apart from Pat Muldowney, the editors (including me) are pseudonymous, none of us can know whether or not any of the rest of us has a material stake in that investment, or a personal involvement in or connection with any other aspect of the story.

The TV programme employed two academic history researchers. One of the two has publicly criticised the programme on historical grounds. The other researcher has said nothing publicly that I am aware of, but it is widely understood that he is profoundly disenchanted with it. It is certainly the case that he has made no public defence of the programme when it was publicly criticised.

The only other academic historian who discussed the programme publicly has declared it to have no value as history.

Wikipedia strictures on material about living people should be borne in mind. Charges of murder, atrocity, ethnic cleansing and genocide have been bandied about. The alleged beneficiaries of these alleged crimes are alive in Offaly, and enjoying the contaminated fruits of these alleged crimes.

If the crimes are proven, then like other such crimes in Europe and elsewhere, recompense and restitution must be made to those who were the victims, and/or to their descendants who suffered the loss of what was rightfully theirs. And any damage to their reputation would have to be remedied.

This has implications, in terms of their property, reputation and lives, for people now living in Offaly, and in Australia.

For instance, the youngest of the IRA men on the roadblock allegedly attacked by the Pearsons has only recently died. Local connections to the issue are still very close and personal. This is not some abstract debate.

So the statements that are being bandied about have very real significance for the reputations, possessions and well-being of living people on both sides of the issue.

Some of the recent editing of the article is based on ephemera such as opinion pieces and readers’ letters to the newspapers, and it tends towards the exposure/demonising of people who allegedly perpetrated the alleged crimes, and consequently towards the exposure/demonising of those people who currently enjoy the fruits of those alleged crimes.

If this line of editing is continued with, then, on the Pearson side, there are documented accounts of their conduct, which would have to be included in the Wikipedia for balance and neutrality. To get a flavour of this, there are written reports of the Pearsons emptying the contents of their dry toilet (piles of human excrement) on the path taken by church-goers. That's just a small part of it, and if one side is demonised, there can no holding back on the alternate versions.

This is the territory this article is heading towards. It is not going to be possible to conceal things which happened when extreme passions were aroused by war, and when people were disturbed out of their normal, more tolerant way of life. These things can only cause unnecessary hurt, embarrassment and pain to living people in Ireland and Australia if they are forced into this article by one-sided demonisation.

While I am not too happy with Pat Muldowney’s edit, it at least has the merit that it reduces the article almost to a stub, consisting of the basic facts and references. A stub which can await the more sobre and considered academic studies which are now in preparation.

I am not too happy with Muldowney’s edit because of the inclusion of the TV programme. But if I revised it, the article might be dragged into territory which would be best left to the historians who are now investigating.

Therefore, since his reasons have not been refuted or even challenged here on the Talk Page, I am restoring Muldowney’s version. Knockanore (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a pity you have done that, because Muldowney has clearly been editing here to defend the position which he had strenuously advocated in the media. He is quite entitled to argue publicly for whatever view he wants, but it's completely different matter for him to come here and to write a wikipedia article designed to uphold his view on an issue of public controversy in which he is such a major player.

I have stayed away from this issue for over a week, to think about it a bit further, because I felt that I was getting too immersed in the details. Having done a bit of thinking about it, I now feel think that:

1. There is a grave shortage of reliable secondary sources on the subject of the killings themselves, which is what an article such as this sort should be based on. Apart from the television program and commentary thereon, what we have instead two published accounts which do not amount to reliable sources (Heaney and Stanley, neither of whom are academic historians, both of whom have a personal stake in the events), a bundle of original research and synthesis of primary sources by Muldowney and others (and of course I and others have particiapted here in a discussion analysing those sources, which we shouldn't have, and I accept my mistake in that).
2. Since all we about the 1921 have is unreliable sources plus original research and synthesis of primary sources, it means that core of an article on the events of 1921 does not meet basic wikipedia policies. Because of that, an article on the killings themselves, such as that by Muldowney, should be deleted.
3. What we do have reliable sources for — in plenty — is not the events themselves, but the major controversy surrounding the TV program, including all the claims and counter-claims about its accuracy or otherwise. I will therefore revert the restoration of Muldowney's edits, to restore the focus on the controversy surrounding the TV program. Further edits will be required to remove all the OR and SYN which dominates the first parts of the articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is not in the category of 2007 TV programmes, it is in the categories of 1921 Offaly history and War of Independence. BrownHairedGirl has posted material arising from a recent TV programme, and in support/defence of that programme, and has suggested that there is nothing objective to be said here about those historic events, and we can only deal with the TV programme. But that means there is no basis for the programme as history. If so, it was merely entertainment, and it would be better discussed in YouTube, not Wikipedia.

The bias in the material contributed by BrownHairedGirl and other protagonists of the TV programme has been analysed in the contribution above (Pat Muldowney (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2008). Effectively the only response to the detailed reasoning there has been that Muldowney has no business contributing to this subject.

That is not a reasonable response, so I am now restoring the deleted material. The big advantage of that material is that it enables readers to read in full the 1921 sources which have been selectively quoted by the protagonists on the side of BrownHairedGirl.Knockanore (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

We can easily enough recategorise the article as a historical controversy or as a TV program; the content should dictate the categories, not the other way around. There are plenty of wikipedia articles on TV programs, and one useful parallel is Death on the Rock, an article discussing a controversial TV program about a controversial event with some similarities.

Muldowney's accusations of bias in the material added in respect of the TV programme are based on two fundamental flaws: a malicious allegation that I have some sort of access to RTE's private sources, and a notion that sources on the public debate should be selected to balance both sides of an argument, rather than in a proportion which reflects the balance of views in the public debate (see WP:NPOV).

However, I note that you do not dispute that my point that there are not enough reliable sources to allow an article on the events which meets wikipedia's requirement for reliable sources. Kockanore, I note that all bar one of your 15 edits on wikipedia relates to this article. New editors are welcome, but it would be helpful if you were to take some time to read wikipedia's policies such as WP:V, WP:RS, [[WP:NOR[] and WP:SYN before dismissing sourcing problems as invalid.

I strongly object to the suggestion that I was "selectively quoting" sources, and I am disappinted that I have to draw your attention yet again to the point that indymedia is not a reliable source. I will revert your latest edit to restore the non-COI version which isn't splattered with links to unreliable sources, and will then nominate the article for deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about an historical incident, not a tv programme. As the editor of History Ireland, Tommy Graham (HI, Vol 16 no. 1, 2008) says, of the programme, "it was a textbook exercise in media spin." This created “a predictably ill-informed and emotive debate. He states quite clearly that there were limited opportunities afforded to those critical of the general line being taken by the programme-makers, when conjuring up a media will-o’-the-wisp. In conclusion he says it is doubtful weather they have made “any long-term contribution to scholarship.” --Domer48 (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a strangely irrelevant conclusion, because I can't think off-hand of more than a small handful of TV programs that could be remotely described as having made “any long-term contribution to scholarship”; the best programmes may provide a readily accessible summary of an issue or raise a few questions, but no TV programme-maker I know would ever claim that their work is or could be a form of scholarship. The nature of the medium, and the limited time available in most cases, means that a TV program contains far fewer words than would be included in even a short book, and probably less than in a short article ... and TV never has footnotes. He may or may not be right that there is spin involved ... but I used to know Tommy in his younger days, and he was never short of spin himself (his Marxist-Leninist history tours of Dublin were the famous for their non-mainstream view).

However, that's all by-the-by. Ill-informed and emotive debate can still be notable; a lot of what happens in the political sphere could be described as ill-informed and emotive, but it can be covered on wikipedia as a controversy if there are sufficient reliable sources on how the controversy progressed. and on its significance. However, as noted above we simply don't have the appropriate sources for a historical article on the incident itself, and since we don't have consensus for an article on the TV programme, this pile of WP:OR, WP:POV and WP:SYN needs to go to AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] edit deux

I'll pass on your comments to the editor Tommy Graham of History Ireland, since you know him and how you are trying to discredit both him and Ireland's only history magazine. Your comments would also reflect on the Patrons of History Ireland, and without naming anyone, to suggest that they would support the efforts of a Marxist-Leninist history Magazine and the editors non-mainstream view is quite absurd. Your comments are ill-informed and emotive, being a subscriber, I should know. --Domer48 (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to pass it on, but don't try to put words in my mouth: I didn't say that HI is a Marxist-Leninist history Magazine, just that Tommy comes from a particular position of his own, and his role in the Communist Party of Ireland (Marxist-Leninist) is a matter of public record, so I'm sure it's nothing he hasn't heard many times before! The patrons of a magazine or any other organisation don't vet or even necessarily approve of everything that is written in it.

The point I was making is not to discredit Tommy, but to illustrate that the makers of the television programme aren't the only people in the debate who have an axe to grind. Much of the controversy around the TV programme could be characterised as just one of the latest episodes in the long-running historico-political debates amongst the changing positions of the Irish left. Eoghan Harris was once the ideologue of Official Sinn Fein, The Aubane Historical Society (in which Pat Muldowney is active) appears to be closely linked to the former British and Irish Communist Organisation. This is just the latest spat in the historiographical arguments amongst the relatively small Irish left, some of whom have bed fellows at various times and enemies at others; there are a lot of shifting alliances involved, and an awful of current positions forcefully presented as if they were immutable truths. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Now, what about Tommy's comment that the TV programme wasn't a work of scholarship? Want to suggest any TV programmes do advance scholarship? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I know full well the point you were making, and it was a poor attempt. That you are still trying to make is not any great surprise. Stop digging. --Domer48 (talk) 07:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Domer, I'm not the one who's digging. Criticising a TV programme for not advancing scholarship is a spurious charge. It makes about as much sense as criticising the Irish Naval Service for doing nothing to help tillage farmers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I support BHG on all this. A TV programme can at least air a subject, tho' how it is edited is a matter for debate. But "Aubane says" xxx on one side, balanced with RTE (or whoever) says yyy is the best format. History Ireland is a weak product, seemingly made for the American market, but there it is, published, quotable and refutable.Red Hurley (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup tags

I have tagged this articles with {{self-published}} and {{original research}}, because it contains multiple references to self-published material hosted on indymedia.ie, and draws unreferenced conclusions from what are claimed to be primary sources.

Please do not remove these tags unless and until these problems are resolved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the references to Stanley's book; You have removed the linked transcribed documents. Are there any impediments to removing the {{self-published}} tag? 82.36.178.185 (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If references to Stanley's book are to be removed, so to should references to Paddy Heaney's book. He is not an academic historian and has a conflict of interest in that his family are part of the story. That his writings are published in local historical journal shouldn't mean that his position is "elevated" to reliable secondary source material. Feint (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that Heaney's book is the last of the self-published sources, so if it is removed, then I think that the {{self-published}} tag can go. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

... or rather Heaney's book was the last, apart from Muldowney's book, which I have just removed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have now removed the refs to Heaney's books, and added a {{COI2}} tag on account of Muldowney's creation of the article and his continued edits, despite his conflict of interest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Editors (including me) have addressed issues indicated by the tags that I’ve removed, and they had been there a sufficient length of time for others to address, as they might see fit, any other aspects indicated by those tags. So, at this point, in my opinion further editing should be without prejudice, and editors can judge for themselves, from the article itself, what they think should be done in it. Pat Muldowney (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unreadable

1. "which, though evolved out of Protestantism, is considered to be distinct from the main Christian groupings such as Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.[3]"

- may as well add that Protestantism evolved out Catholicism? The point about the Cooneyites was that they were pacifists

2. "The orders to shoot the Pearsons would have come directly from IRA headquarters, and not made locally."

Style-wise, can we do better than this? And who ordered the executions from above? Is "local" Cadamstown or Offaly or what?

As a matter of common sense, how likely was it for 2 men to approach an 8-man patrol on its guard, and shoot 2 sentries without being injured? The killings seem much more like revenge on the local IRA's part for being shown up. The article reads like one of those 1950s pamphlets sold around the pubs, not at all encyclopedic.Red Hurley (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with Red Hurley. And herein lies the problem - as long as Pat Muldowney continues to edit and have influence on the writing of this page, its encyclopedic value will be minimal.

"And who ordered the executions from above? Is "local" Cadamstown or Offaly or what?" The answer to that question was mentioned in earlier edits of the article page, but surprise, surprise it has been conveniently edited out by Pat Muldowney.Feint (talk) 07:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It would help if Mr Muldowney could explain why the Pearsons managed to shoot the soldiers without being injured themselves. Surely someone on the patrol had a theory on that. If the order to execute came from GHQ in Dublin, could we have a date and reference please. And there must have been a reason that both Pearsons were left alive - could we know what it was? Was that an omission or done deliberately by the company or the battalion commander? These are all rather obvious points. Surviving a firing squad is noteworthy in itself. Each point may have different explanations and sources; put them all in. Red Hurley (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I placed the information on the order to execute came from GHQ in Dublin, which is sourced according to our policy on WP:V, no date was given in the source. Your asking a lot of questions, why not go and find the answers yourself? If your not willing to contribute to the article, what are you here for? --Domer48 (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on Previous

In theory, all Christian denominations accept that “Thou shalt not kill”. It is debatable whether the Cooneyite religious movement was pacifist. In the early twentieth century, newspaper accounts show that the Cooneyites were involved in rioting and fighting with other denominations. Regarding the Pearsons, whether or not their actions were contrary to the doctrines of their religious faith, they engaged in gunfire directed against other people (see each of the competing accounts below). In my opinion, the particular religious faith of the Pearsons is irrelevant. But since it has been put under the spotlight by various writers, it is best to try to get some reasonably accurate sense of what their religious faith was, even if it is irrelevant.

I did not contribute the statement that "The orders to shoot the Pearsons would have come directly from IRA headquarters, and not made locally." My understanding from various authors is that Thomas Burke, from Co. Galway and a former student of medicine in Dublin, was sent to Offaly by General Richard Mulcahy to intensify resistance and to deal with collaborators and informers who were taking a heavy toll in the county. Burke’s report regarding the Pearsons says that the roadblock incident was investigated by him in Officers’ Battalion Council, and that the attackers were identified as Richard, Abraham and Sidney Pearson. He then ordered that they be executed and their house burnt. As far as I am aware, there is no other or conflicting account of this.

There are two accounts of the shootings, one by Alan Stanley, as related to him by his father William Stanley who was staying with the Pearsons at the time under the assumed name Jimmy Bradley, having been ordered out of his home area of Luggacurran, Co.Laois, for involvement in a plot with the Auxiliaries to take out the local IRA commander ( - this information comes from Alan Stanley’s book).

Alan Stanley reports his father’s account, that the Pearsons saw the "rebels" cutting down a tree, that Richard Pearson went to them and exchanged words, that he returned to the house, fetched a shotgun, and fired a single shotgun cartridge over their heads as a warning. Alan says that his father’s cousin Oliver Stanley of Co. Laois told him many years later that two IRA men were shot at the roadblock by a police/Auxiliary patrol, and that the IRA mistakenly blamed the Pearsons for it. Alan says that his father did not mention the latter incident to him. The first version (his father’s) is partly corroborated – see below, and there is no record at all of an Auxiliary/police patrol. The latter version (Oliver's) is unlikely since there were IRA manoeuvres/roadblocks across the county as a whole that night and it is hard to see how a patrol could have made it through to Cadamstown from Tullamore Barracks; or, indeed, why it would have taken such a risk at night, for such a minor objective.

The other account is by Paddy Heaney. A party of eight IRA men were on roadblock duty. Two of the party were armed, on sentry duty at either side. He reports that there was no conversation with Richard Pearson or anybody else. About midnight the sentry on the Pearson end of the road heard approaching footsteps. He issued a verbal challenge, twice, without reply. He was fired on and wounded. He managed to return fire, and the other sentry ran to his assistance and fired. He too was wounded. They thought they hit one of their attackers, but no confirmation of the hit is recorded. A retired RIC man detained by them was seriously wounded by the incoming gunfire as he ran from the engagement. The gunfire consisted of shotgun and rifle rounds, taken out of the gunshot wounds. Heaney’s information comes from conversations with the roadblock volunteers (other than the sentry who subsequently died, who was distantly related to him), the last of whom died fairly recently. This was Bill Glenn, whose father was a Scottish soldier killed in the Battle of the Somme.

I’ve tried to include the substance of both accounts in the article, without being too long-winded about it.

The engagement practically finished off the Cadamstown IRA, because the roadblock Volunteers were arrested and imprisoned the following day, along with an uninvolved civilian, probably a case of mistaken identity. Realistically, it is likely that the Pearsons identified the Volunteers, and where they lived. They went to school with some of them, or their brothers and sisters.

Regarding the executions, the shooting was wildly inaccurate. From bullet marks on the barn wall, most of the shots missed their targets and, apart from two fairly serious but non-mortal wounds, the rest appear to be grazes. But there is no real evidence that the firing squad were aiming wide, or trying to do anything other than carry out their orders. Apparently there are significant psychological factors involved. Pat Muldowney (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Pat Muldowney's statement that "...William Stanley who was staying with the Pearsons at the time under the assumed name Jimmy Bradley, having been ordered out of his home area of Luggacurran, Co.Laois, for involvement in a plot with the Auxiliaries to take out the local IRA commander ( - this information comes from Alan Stanley’s book)."

...is of course untrue.

This statement most emphatically does not come out of Alan Stanley's book - William Stanley alias Jimmy Bradley was threatened by the IRA to get out of the area (guilty by association) but nowhere is there mention in Alan Stanley's book of his "father's involvement in a plot with the Auxiliaries to take out the local IRA commander". This is an excellent example of Pat Muldowney taking liberties with information to suit his agenda that he knows a general Wikipedia reader would not be familiar with. (another example: casually slipping in comments about Cooneyites being violent [no evidence] and then "innocently" saying in his opinion, the particular religious faith of the Pearsons is irrelevant, but "since it has been put under the spotlight...")

Yet again it says loud and clear that Pat Muldowney should not have any direct part in the editing of the final article on this subject. Feint (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Synthesis, original research and unreliable sources

The issue here is not whether Pat is right or wrong; the problem is that he is engaging in original research, by synthesising material from other sources to draw novel conclusions.

In addition, the two source which Pat is relying on so heavily, Stanley and Heaney, are not reliable sources: they are accounts of events by parties directly related to the participants, both of whom are pushing their own interpretation of events. Such sources are of course legitimately used by historians, who make their own judgements on how to weigh such material ... but wikipedia relies on secondary sources.

This point has been repeatedly made to Pat, who ignores it and continues adding his original research. Regrettably, some other editors have been encouraging him in this :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No. I am quoting or summarising the sources, the main ones being the archival ones and publications of TCD historian Philip McConway, as well as the Paddy Heaney material published by the Offaly Hitorical & Archaeological Society, and the Alan Stanley material published by the Sunday Independent.

Regarding the points above (in the Talk Page, not the article), the following is from Alan Stanley, I met Murder on the way, 2nd edition, pages 103-107:

…My father [William Stanley] used to keep company with a number of young men in the [Luggacurran] area. Like him, they were all sons of “planters”. … All were in possession of a pistol of one kind or other. … They liked to play at soldiers. ... The ringleader was [James] Kavanagh. … Kavanagh’s mother … espied two handsome young Englishmen [at Sunday Matins], auxiliary Police Cadets, and invited them home for lunch. They were in Ireland to boost the Royal Irish Constabulary … It seems there was more than a social element to their visits to the Kavanagh household. Violet Stanley … told me she overheard them discuss plans to “lift” a young man of the area who was an active IRA member. … If the local brigade (IRA) had tolerated playing at soldiers [i.e. Kavanagh & Co.’s armed antics], fraternising with the enemy was a different matter altogether, one that in many cases exacted the extreme penalty. It was not long until … they got notice to leave. … Frank [Stanley, Alan Stanley’s informant] believed it was the decency of the Luggacurran people that enabled them to get off so lightly.

Note Alan Stanley's tendency to play down and diminish the significance of militant loyalist activity, to make it seem innocent and harmless. Auxiliary Police Cadets are Auxies. It seems that William Stanley's collusion with Auxies got nowhere. But William Stanley/Jimmy Bradley got close to real action in Coolacrease.

Doug Parker’s parents were Cooneyite and he grew up in the group, though he later became an Anglican minister in Sydney, Australia. His book (The Secret Sect) on the subject is one of the more sympathetic accounts:

Newspaper reports corroborate early preachers’ statements about the growth of the movement, and reporters’ descriptions of public meetings and demonstrations provide evidence of the sect’s activities and beliefs as much as they pointed out local antagonism. Preachers were disliked because of their exclusive sectarianism and bigotry, and reports of the large demonstrations at Newtownards that took place when Edward Cooney preached there in 1904 provided evidence that a local clergyman conducted meetings to oppose the sect’s activities, and that soon after an estimated crowd of three thousand people gathered, some to hear Cooney, others to disrupt his meetings with pipes and drums (The Impartial Reporter and Farmers’ Journal 30 July 1908 [a Fermanagh newspaper]). … Mourners and sectarians [Cooneyites] engaged in a scuffle at a church door, and the lid of the coffin was knocked off when the sectarians attempted to bear the coffin away from the church for their own committal. (ibid., 22 October 1908). (Parker, page 31.)

There are many such stories on record. Internet search yields more. Present day Cooneyites, if not ecumenical, seem quite pacific; though occasional stories surface about marriage matches which appear not entirely voluntary. I don’t know whether they are formally pacifist or not nowadays. If they were formally pacifist in 1921, then obviously the Pearsons did not live up to the religious standards of the group. So in the end, what difference does it make what the Cooneyites were?

These are issues in the discussion here in Talk; not in the article at present. Pat Muldowney (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Pat, all the material on Cooneyites is interesting, but applying it to Pearsons is original research, because you are conflating accounts Of Cooneyites elsewhere with the story of the Pearsons: that may or may be true or it may not, but it's a synthesis.

Secondly, Stanley's account above is not a reliable source. Please, do go and read WP:RS. Your commentary on it is yet more original research.

Thirdly, your use of the archival sources is original research. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

With respect - you are conflating debate and commentary on the Talk Page with simple reporting of WP-approved sources in the article. Pat Muldowney (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Pat, what do you mean that those are "WP-approved sources"? Please do read WP:RS, WP:V and WP:SYN.

Article talk pages are not for general discussion about a subject, they are for discussion on the article. If your comments on the sources are not about the content to the article, you should take them to your Indymedia pages, not publish them here ... but comments such as this make it clear that your aim is not "simple reporting". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"Please do read WP:RS, WP:V and [[WP:SYN]". This suggests that I have not read them, that I am incapable of understanding them, or that I am consciously flouting them. I wonder what are the grounds for such suggestions?

"your comments on the sources are not about the content to the article" relates to my response to an earlier editor on this page who said: This is an excellent example of Pat Muldowney taking liberties with information to suit his agenda that he knows a general Wikipedia reader would not be familiar with. This in effect says that I am a liar. The only way to decide whether this allegation is correct is to check whether I had reported the information accurately. My response was to point the reader/editor to that information so they could check it out for themselves. How else would one respond to such a thing? Pat Muldowney (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Pat, there are two ways to respond to such a thing:

1. showing how that interpretation has been made in reliable sources. (What you did was to make your own interpretation by synthesising other sources)
2. Acknowledge that there is no reliable source, and agree to amend the article to remove the interpretation.

Pat, I don't know whether it is true that you have not read those guidelines, or are incapable of understanding them, or are consciously flouting them. However, it must be one of those three, because I see no other explanation for your repeated use of synthesis and original research, based in part on unreliable sources. Considering that you have flagrantly ignored WP:COI to use wikipedia as part of your public campaign, I'm inclined to guess that it is because you have chosen to ignore these guidelines because they don't help your campaign on this subject. But that's only a guess, and only you can tell us which it is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

PS I should also say that your use of at least one sockuppet to try to stack a deletion debate is another factor which inclines me to think you are consciously flouting the sourcing policies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

BHG, or should I say pick a policy, because your use and abuse of policies are becoming a pain. What about WP:NPA or WP:AGF. Pat has explained and quoted what the sources above have said, what is the point asking for this if you can not deal with them. For my part, I'd delete the article, but not if it is just for you to create one on a tv programme, thats what you want is it not? An article with more POV than this one, how nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domer48 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 14 May 2008

Domer, it is not a personal attack to point out breaches of wikipedia policy, and WP:AGF#About_good_faith specifically says: "this guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary".

Pat has indeed explained his interpretation of the primary sources, which is a classic case of WP:SYN. It's not a question of whether I or anyone else "can not deal with them", but of the fact that such synthesis is specifically ruled out by policy. You have been commendably firm in pushing this point on other occasions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Bew on Coolacrease

Here is another source: Paul Bew (Professor of Politics, Queen’s University Belfast) - Ireland: The Politics Of Enmity, 1789-2006, Oxford University Press, 2007, Oxford History Of Modern Europe series: "On 30 June a band of 30 armed men shot the two eldest sons of the Pearson household at Coolacrease, Cadamstown, Co. Offaly. Even as the murders were perpetrated, the IRA volunteers made assurances that this was not happening because the Pearsons were Protestants, but could not actually give a reason as to why it was happening. (Alan Stanley, I Met Murder on the Way, The Story of the Pearsons at Coolacrease (Naas, 2005), 12-13. For a critique which argues that the Pearsons were executed because of their involvement in an armed attack on the IRA, see Pat Muldonney, "I Met Humbug On The Way", Church & State, 84 (Spring 2006), 17-24.") The British tended to believe that this increase in attacks on loyalists, relatively soft targets, was the IRA's means of sustaining military pressure in a contest whose overall military logic was going against the IRA." (Page 416).

The other Wikipedia reference to the incident is at: Chronology of the Irish War of Independence, 30 June 1921 There are very few incidents listed there which are as well-documented as this one.

Regarding WP policy: I’ve read the article again, and cannot see where I have expressed my point of view in it. (Of course, like practically everyone who knows the story I have a point of view.) If it can be pointed out I’d be happy to remove it. The sources are of the kind listed in WP policy as admissible. Other than straight reporting from the sources there are no explicit or implicit affirmations, conclusions or opinions that I can detect; no analysis, comparisons, cross-references or deductions. If such are present it would be helpful to the article if they were pointed out. As to Conflict of Interest, I don’t know whether I have a reputation or not, but if I have, it’s in an area so far removed from this that nothing that could possibly happen here can make the slightest bit of difference to it.

Mere condemnation is not conducive to establishing a consensus. Pat Muldowney (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Pat, on the matter of a conflict of interest, your reply is disingenuous. Yes, your profession is that of a mathematician, but you have also be a voiciferous campaigner on the subject of this event, taking a profile in the Irish media to promoting your interpretation over that of others. That's where the conflict of interest lies, and I find it spectacularly dishonest of you to persist in denying that such a conflict exists.

AS to the sourcing, I am not making "mere condemnation"; I am pointing out you that it is not enough for an event to be documented in primary sources. What matters is that an article should be based on substantial secondary coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, The problem with those articles is that such sources are not available in this case.

I have tried and tried and tried to pint this out to you, but your response is merely to reply in generalities, such as "the sources are of the kind listed in WP policy as admissible". It's not that simple: it depends what sources are used for what purposes. I have set out at length both here and at AFD where the sources fall short of the required standards, and if you actually want a consensus then it's time that you addressed some of those points rather than simply dismissing them with generalities.

Let me set it out for you simply: the closest thing we have so far to an independent reliable secondary source on this subject is McConway's two-part article in the Tullamore Tribune. Now, what other reliable secondary sources do you and believe exist? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Like an earlier editor who, in effect, accused me of lying (but had no answer when I quoted chapter and verse), the previous editor now accuses me of being “spectacularly dishonest”; and of "persistently denying that such a conflict [of interest] exists.” These are strong words, to which CoI (“Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban.”) might refer.

Since I have not, to my present recollection, ever mentioned CoI before, I cannot see how I might have “persistently denied” it. In fact I find it hard to get my head around the idea at all, since, if I had not disclosed my name and a publication of mine, we could hardly be talking about CoI here. “No disclosure equals no talk of CoI” – strange!

In previous post to this Talk Page, I asked for the words, phrases or sentences in the article which skewed the article towards my point of view to be pointed out. This hasn’t happened. I couldn’t find any myself. If there are none I can’t see how a CoI claim is relevant.

Similarly I requested instances of argument, deduction, cross-referencing, theorising and the like to be pointed out in the article. This has not happened yet, either.

As to sources, I have offered another notable secondary source here on the Talk Page. Paul Bew’s account does not seem to add or take away from what’s already in the article, which is a sign that the article is on the right track. I’m aware of good on-going work and publication, so the subject continues to attract expert attention. See for instance the latest issue of History Ireland.

The Midland Tribune group of newspapers and the publications of the Offaly Historical & Archaeological Society are, I believe, “reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy” and are “respected mainstream publications” (WP-V).

The direct references/quotes/summaries from primary sources are, I think, not interpreted and are in accordance with WP policy. Regarding the use of primary sources in the article, the comment has been made by previous editor: “ … it depends what sources are used for what purposes”. This comment is very much to the point.

According to Wikipedia on primary sources: “In many fields and contexts, such as historical writing, it is almost always advisable to use primary sources if possible, and if none are available, it is only with great caution that [the author] may proceed to make use of secondary sources. In addition, primary sources avoid the problem inherent in secondary sources, where each new author may distort and put their own spin on the findings of prior cited authors. However, a primary source is not necessarily more authoritative or accurate than a secondary source. There can be bias and simplification of events.

"Original material may be ... prejudiced, or at least not exactly what it claims to be.

“These errors may be corrected in secondary sources, which are often subjected to peer review, can be well documented, and are often written by historians working in institutions where methodological accuracy is important to the future of the author's career and reputation. Historians consider the accuracy and objectiveness of the primary sources they are using and historians subject both primary and secondary sources to a high level of scrutiny. A primary source such as a journal entry (or the online version, a blog), at best, may only reflects one individual's opinion on events, which may or may not be truthful, accurate, or complete.”

What seem to be primary sources can be plants or forgeries, or can be slanted by subjective bias or tendentious reporting. Such factors are often detectable and correctable by experienced professionals who report on them in secondary sources. In this article, an axe has been taken to what, to my mind, are valuable primary sources such as Alan Stanley’s self-published book “I met Murder on the way” (2005). The information drawn from Stanley’s book in the original version of the article was not necessarily presented as fact, but as illustrative of the way in which this author and others viewed the 1921 events, and possibly even reflecting the author’s bias. This particular presentation has itself become an historical fact like the Piggott Letter, and merely reporting what Stanley said is not, in my view, misuse of a primary source; especially when it is set against opposing versions. But reference to Stanley’s book has been removed, unfortunately. To my mind, this constitutes tampering with the historical record. If Stanley’s book is good enough for Lord Professor Bew, it should be good enough for Wikipedia.

A report of the evidence of, say, a professional or accountable person in a formal or official setting; a report archived and placed in the public domain by a responsible government authority – that, to my mind, belongs in the class of superior sources as described by Wikipedia above. Especially if, as in the case of this article, such reports are quoted or summarised without selection, interpretation, analysis or deduction, in accordance with WP policy. According to WP above, good primary sources are gold standard, while good secondary sources are needed as a filter for uncertain primary sources. Pat Muldowney (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Pat Muldowney's comment

"Like an earlier editor who, in effect, accused me of lying (but had no answer when I quoted chapter and verse)..."

was not responded to because in the end it was decided that Stanley's account is not a reliable source.

However the accusation of lying still stands: William Stanley was, as mentioned earlier, guilty by association. When "Violet Stanley...told {Alan Stanley} she overheard them discuss plans to “lift” a young man of the area who was an active IRA member...", the "them" she was talking about was the "Police Cadets", not William Stanley. He wasn't a soldier/spy/informer or anything else Muldowney would have you believe nor is there any evidence of it (as the historians in the documentary pointed out). Muldowney is making casual assumptions that no serious academic historian would do (or has done).

The Cooneyite/sectarian argument is poor; the piece he quotes from effectively says that two opposing religious groups confront each other in a demonstration and a scuffle ensued. So what? Is everybody who takes part in a demonstration sectarian? As Patricia Roberts, Ed Cooney’s biographer points out, “Since they were by conviction pacifists, they wished to register as Conscientious Objectors..." But Pat Muldowney reaches other conclusions despite the evidence to hand, and sums up, "If they were formally pacifist in 1921, then obviously the Pearsons did not live up to the religious standards of the group". Not good balanced hisorical assessment.

Also why is there still a reference to Paddy Heaney's book in the article? As I said earlier, he is not an academic historian and has a conflict of interest in that his family are part of the story. That his writings are published in local historical journal shouldn't mean that his position is "elevated" to reliable secondary source material.Feint (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't understand how a source can be dismissed in one breath and used to prove a point in the next. Re the next point, the issue is not whether Cooneyites were pacifists, but whether the Pearsons were - and there's not too much to prove on that one. On the final point, "feint" should address her problem to the OHAS. Pat Muldowney (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• The source wasn't dismissed, your interpretation of the source was dismissed as is your (solo run) unfounded claim about the guilt of the Pearsons. Muldowney's obsession with a certain female has lead him to indulge in some fantasising which he can continue to do with me providing he's happy with the male variety. Also stop undoing the article: You (master of logic) are the Conflict of Interest. Feint (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please read WP:TPG

All editors should read the above on talk page guidlines. Address the edits and not the editor. If editors continue to WP:ABF and insist on personal attacks it should be brought to a RfC, or ArbCom should step in as this article is covered under the troubles. --Domer48 (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• • In reference to Feint (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC), above, it seems illogical to suggest that Pat Muldowney IS a conflict of interest - the charge is, in itself, simply a personal attack. Muldowney, as a newcomer, appears to have conscientiously attempted to place material in line with guidelines, which he seems to have actually read. I put in an edit in good faith, explaining why the 'scare-quote' tags at the beginning of the article should be removed. I also put in a secondary source. All were removed by Feint, twice. I agree with Domer48's restitution. The vandalism should stop. Nomath (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Feint I suggest you stop editwarring or you could be blocked from editing. I have posted the link to our policy on WP:3RR on your talk page. Also do not continue to personally attack other editors. Address the edits not the editors. --Domer48 (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• (1) I have been warned "Also do not continue to personally attack other editors".

I will remind Domer48 that the personal attack came first from Pat Muldowney with his reference to me as "her"; this being connected to his obsession with a certain documentary producer. Since I am not that person and do not wish to be referred to as "her" I would ask you to bring the issue of personal attacks to Pat Muldowney.

(2) To more important issues; the article. We have a real problem here. It was first addressed by brownhairedgirl(above). As a result of a discussion of sorts this article was nominated for deletion on 6 May 2008. More importantly, the result of the discussion was no consensus. There is still a conflict of interest. First is the issue of Pat Muldowney. Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of his opinion, he has taken a position on this story which is in sharp contrast to other views of the event. Therefore a reader coming to this article needs to know the clear position of the editor (most won't bother checking the discussion page). Secondly, Muldowney was one of seven (two of them are referenced in the article as reliable secondary sources - Paddy Heaney and Philip McConway) people who took issue with an interpretation of the the events of Coolacrease in a TV documentary, took there complaints to an independent Broadcasting Complaints Commission and failed. As someone mentioned earlier, Broadcasting is not history, but if a minority of people's interpretation of an event is not recognised by an independent body and then three of those people's interpretation are used in a Wiki article (editing and references), then there is a serious problem meeting the standards that wikipedia wish to maintain. That there isn't much academic material on the subject, doesn't mean that we should rely on local publications as reliable secondary sources, especially when we know the direct family connection (in the case of Heaney). There is not a consensus. That is why I'm reversing the article Feint (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• • (1) I must say I had not considered being addressed as 'her' to be a personal attack, but I am sure that Pat Muldowney will be man enough, assuming he is one and that he is not offended by my assumption, to apologise for casting such a slur on Feint's character.

• • (2) As to the second complaint, it seems Pat Muldowney is at fault for being Pat Muldowney, for appearing under his own name. Had he arrived here in the guise of Feint and, admittedly, me and most other WPers, that is anonymously, then there would be no complaint. Muldowney is to be condemned for being open and transparent, for being himself. If he could manage to be someone else the matter would be resolved. Such is the level of absurdity to which we are being asked to descend. I note that there are no particular objections to what is on the page. That is why I propose to reinstate my reference to Paul Bew's book and to get rid of the nonsense that clutters the start of the page, that seems to be there solely for the purpose of scaring off readers. Nomath (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I had no desire to give any offence. Most of the previous discussion had been with BrownHairedGirl, and it seems I lost track. Sorry about that. Pat Muldowney (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok so now everyone knows about our policy on WP:CIVIL, and also no personal attacks. I will just remind editors again about our policy on reverting editors will get blocked. --Domer48 (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please read wikipedia policies and guidelines

Domer48, from other discussions elsewhere, I think you know the policies, and their applicability here, but I will set them out for the benefit of other readers.

1. WP:AGF specifically says "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary"
2. That is particularly relevant in the case of this article, where Pat Muldowney's blatant conflict of interest was pointed out to him nearly 4 weeks. Pat has ignored or dismissed repeated reminders of this, and continues to edit this article in support of his public campaign on areas which he has insisted is outside his field of professional expertise
3. Pat Muldowney had repeatedly been reminded of wikipedia policies and guidelines such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:SYN ... yet despite these repeated reminders, Pat quotes at length above from the article on Primary sources which stresses their importance for historical research, completely ignoring that wikipedia specifically sets out not to use primary sources, because interpreting them is a form of original research. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core policy, and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources says very clearly

   "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"

4. This article does not "rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". It relies on primary sources, on two partisan accounts by persons with relatives involved in the event, and on a local newspaper article backed up by a local history society.
5. So, Muldowney has for weeks ignored WP:COI, and in a lengthy comment above, Muldowney specifically defends his use of primary sources in this article. There are two possible explanations for this: either that Muldowney is incapable of understanding the guidelines, or that he is deliberately choosing to ignore them.
6. I believe the latter point to be to be the only plausible interpretation, and here's why:
   • Muldowney is not some teenage enthusiast running foul of unfamiliar concepts in complex policies and guidelines; he is an academic with a PhD, and a lecturer in the University of Ulster.[4]
   • it is simply not plausible that Pat could have gained a PhD and held down a a career in academia if he was incapable of understanding either the relatively simple concepts involved in a "conflict of interest" or the simple policy that "articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"
   • I assumed good faith when I first commented on this article 4 weeks ago, but I think the evidence is now very clear that the only plausible explanation for Pat Muldowney's conduct is that he is acting in bad faith, and that he is intentionally ignoring wikipedia policies and guidelines in pursuit of his wider campaign on this subject, a campaign which is a matter of public record.

The only question now is whether Muldowney will have the good grace to desist from continuing to abuse wikipedia as a vehicle for his campaign, or whether action will have to be taken through some of the more formal channels already suggested. I am quite ready to take matter further if necessary.

Meanwhile, I hope that other editors will not be deterred by Domer48's attempts to dismiss as "personal attacks" the much-needed criticisms of Muldowney's persistent flouting of wikipedia policies and guidelines. WP:V and WP:NOR are core policies of wikipedia, and defending them against Muldowney's explicit advocacy of original research is not a personal attack. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• • One girl's war has resumed, completely focused on an individual. Irrational, idiotic, petty, you name it. Is this personal or objective comment? I leave it to others to decide. Though she edits the page to her satisfaction, she puts back in the 'here be witches' scary stuff at the start. Is it just me, or is this other than simply an animus toward objectivity on this subject? I see my reference to Paul Bew's book has again been deleted. What is the problem? Nomath (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"I hope that other editors will not be deterred by Domer48's attempts to dismiss as "personal attacks" the much-needed criticisms of Muldowney's persistent flouting of wikipedia policies and guidelines." Typical! Were assume good faith is a guidline, and WP:CIVIL is a policy you ignore policy. The level and nature of the personal attacks go beyond our POLICY on civility and you encourage more of it. There is no excuse for this type of conduct! NO EXCUSE! Now another POLICY, WP:3RR, you have ignored because of your partisan opinion in this. Now from the comment of yours above it is obvious you are incapable of raising yourself above the petty personal nature this discussion, and encouraging it. I suggest you and the other editor stop with the sniping. --Domer48 (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Domer, what you are saying amounts to "don't point out breaches of policy" because it's uncivil. Sorry, but WP:CIVIL is not a shield for someone who breaches COI and ignores fundamental policies on sourcing.

WP:CIVIL says "treating constructive criticism as an attack is also disruptive" ... and calling my concerns "petty personal" ignores their substance.

I repeat that Muldowney is intentionally ignoring WP:COI and WP:V. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you can not seem to understand, I'll say it again. No matter what you consider to be a breach of our GUIDELINES, dose not give you the right to be uncivil. Civility on this project is a POLICY. Now is that clear enough for you. Your consistent references to "Muldowney" is indicative on this petty. --Domer48 (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Domer, WP:V and WP:NOR are fundamental policies, not guidelines. I note that your responses consists solely of accusing me of being "uncivil" in drawing attention to Pat Muldowney's misuse of wikipedia to further his campaign, and his use of unreliable and primary sources. So please can you can clarify wheat you think about the substance of this: do you think it's OK for some to use wikipedia to further their position in a public campaign? Do you think that it's OK to synthesise from primary sources, as Muldowney advocates? Do you think it's acceptable to treat as "third party" reliable sources the accounts of two relatives of participants in the events, relatives who have themselves been taking a stance in the public debate on the subject? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you can not seem to understand, I'll say it again. No matter what you consider to be a breach of our GUIDELINES, or even policies for that matter, dose not give you the right to be uncivil. Civility on this project is a POLICY. --Domer48 (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• • One girl in her war on the Coolacrease page has removed references to Heaney and Stanley's published accounts on Coolacrease. Why? Because they are related to people who were involved in the topic, Stanley's father, and Heaney's uncle. On that basis, is BHG going to trawl through Wikipedia and delete all book references or other references from sons or daughters, nephews or nieces to their forebears. Perhaps she should start with Winston Churchill and God. Why not bring brothers into it too? Delete citations relating to James Joyce from his brother Stanislaus. With the Internet there are only seven points of separation between any too individuals. Perhaps we should go the whole hog and delete any reference to anyone from anyone else. (I am truly sorry for not being able to take BHG seriously. I weep in despair at my inability to engage with her very foolish consistency.) Nomath (talk) 08:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Vol. Mick Heaney's father, Bernard Heaney, was distantly related (second cousin) to historian Paddy Heaney's father, Brian Heaney. Some estrangement between these families occurred subsequently. Pat Muldowney (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What sources did Eoghan Harris use? --Domer48 (talk) 10:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Harris referred to Alan Stanley's book "I met Murder on the way", 2005. The following week there was a brief letter by Paddy Heaney in the same paper (Sunday Independent), noting that there was another side to the story and referring readers to his book "At the Foot of Slieve Bloom". Pat Muldowney (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Dose that mean if you wrote a book, some third party could quote from it? --Domer48 (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Offaly Heritage

Am I correct that Offaly Heritage is the annual journal of the society mentioned here? 82.36.178.185 (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

On that site you get the link to http://www.offalyhistory.com, the website of Offaly Historical & Archaeological Society which publishes Offaly Heritage.

Re previous point, I think that must be so. Also, I'm aware of useful new publications which should be available quite soon. Pat Muldowney (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)