Talk:Roger Casement

More drivel, plagiarism and adulteration

Who's stealing from whom? Here's a page from 2003: http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/irhismys/casement.htm Is this article stolen from there, or did "Sean J Murphy" lift from Wikipedia? Just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.107.104.146 (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

"The article on the 'black diaries' is drivel, full of errors. Horgan did not reject Giles because the comparative material passed through the hands of those accused of forgery. I made that point in talks given to the Casement foundation in Dublin. Whoever wrote it should put a name to it. Wikipedia is being used here to plagiarise and adulterate the work of others. I have a pretty good idea who may be behind it. There are so many mistakes there is no point in even beginning to change it. I was sitting beside Horgan when he gave his peer review at Goldsmiths(if that is what it was, as he said himself)." [email protected] wrote the above para, in the quotes

Photo

I'm glad we finally have a picture of Roger, but would it be possible to get one without a big postmark across his face? I've got a bunch of pictures I could probably upload, but I'm unsure of the legality. When exactly does something constitute "fair use"? -R. fiend 18:01, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

R fiend have a look at Fair use, I am happy with stamps as there are lots of examples on wikipedia already but I have no idea if scanning a picture from a book or copying one from the web would be illegal, may keep an eye out for a cleaner stamp so the postmark is not hiding the image. Kglavin 19:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

R Fiend, believe it or not, I have another stamp scan of Roger, I have about 10 more sheets (10 stamps on each sheet) to go through before I get to 'clean roger' so I will overwrite the image Kglavin 19:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(accurate but unencyclopaedic) quote moved to talk

I've moved this edit to this page from the article. It is correct, but is not suitable in the form it was written for the article.

I write this not as an addendum to the above, but as a correction. The 1916 Uprising occurred towards the end of April, 1916. It lasted less than a week. By the end of May scores of Irish republicans had been condemned to death by the victorious British authorities. By mid-May, good sense came to prevail, and the British, rather than create further martyrs for the Irish cause, rescinded the death-penalties on those surviving Irish leaders, De Valera, as an example. Many many people were sentenced to death, and were hereby reprieved. The executions ended in mid-May. But we are left with Casement. Why did the British insist on killing Casement, when they had stopped, as a matter of policy, the execution of Irish leaders? The answer truly lies in his homosexuality. Casement was tried for treason, but his true treason was not against his King, but against his sex: for this it was necessary that he be hanged. And because of his sexuality, no voice was raised in protest, though protest was much expected, particularly from the USA. It was only that quaint eccentric, GBS, who had anything to say at all. GBS -- God Bless Shaw. My name is Jamie O'Neill. I am the author of a book, set in Dublin in 1916, called "At Swim, Two Boys". I don't know everything; but I know an awful lot.

It is a fair analysis. (And At Swim, Two Boys is a good book, BTW!) FearÉIREANN^(talk) 22:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Saying "it was only that quaint eccentric, GBS, who had anything to say at all." is not entirely accurate. Arthur Conan Doyle organised a petition asking for clemency for Casement when he was in prison, which attracted signitures from the likes of Bertrand Russell, Beatrice Webb, Arnold Bennett, Jermome K Jerome, GK Chesterton and John Galsworthy (although Kipling, Conrad and Herbert Ward all refused to sign.) Fillthemill (talk) 09:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Casement's origin

The article doesn't mention where Casement was born or what his initial connection with Ireland was. Did he suddenly adopt the Irish cause as a result of his experiences in the Empire? --Morgandp 08:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

A very good point. Born in Ireland, I'm quite sure. I'll get the specifics. -R. fiend 14:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

There is mention that the British authorities decided against the executions of the rebellious leadership, and the case of Eammon de Velera is cited as an example. My readings indicate that "Dev" had US ancestory and US pressure was brought to bear. The British did not want to alienate the US in 1916 which is why he was not executed.

Furthermore, the article on Casement ignores an important facet. Casement has been called The Man Who Was Hanged on a Comma: the search for an appropriate indictment took the authorities to The Treason Act, 1351. This statute was written in Norman French and did not have punctuation. The relevant portion, defining treason, said "levying war against the King or being adherent to the King's enemies in his realm giving them aid and comfort in the realm or elsewhere." The argument was that Casement's attempted recruitment of Irish PoWs took place in Germany and therefore could not have been within the King's realm.

Ballycastle

Casement was subsequently brought up in Ballycastle in Ulster. Members of the Casement family still live in the same house.

Also no mention of Casements work in The Bannister shipping corporation.

Africa

This article doesn't mention the fact that Casement spent considerable time in both Nigeria and in the Portuguese colonies(modern Angola and Mozambique) working as a British consul. In fact he was still present in Loanda(now Luanda) when the Boer war broke out. Also this article does not include what languages he spoke.

Knighthood

Wikipedia puts people in using their highest title received. As Casement was knighted, his knighthood is stated. The fact that he was stripped of it is immaterial to the opening line but should be stated later. FearÉIREANN 17:17 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The article claimed that Casement's knighthood was the KCMG, but this is incorrect. He was appointed CMG in 1905 and in 1911 was knighted as an ordinary knight bachelor. Both these honours were cancelled after his conviction for treason in 1916. I've amended the article accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.80.120 (talk • contribs)

As Casement was stripped of his knighthood, the title Sir must not be included. - (203.211.73.10 03:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC))

Please see FearÉIREANN's response to this same sort of question nearly four years ago. I placed it above, and grouped all discussion of his knighthood here in one place, for ease of discussion. I think, though, that Jtdirl has stated the matter rather well. ---Charles 04:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I know of no Wikipedia guideline that says that, if there is someone feel free to correct me. Sir is still used by a large number of other places, see here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe his objection is based on any Wiki-policy, more on the basis of some personally-felt insult in leaving Sir on the name of someone the Brits call a traitor. His argument has no basis. ---Charles 04:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, especially as that bastion of British society the BBC still used Sir. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I was not aware of that. As that is the case, I would say that settles it. I am of two minds on the matter, quite frankly. On one hand, I don't give a toss what the Brits say, and think they can shove their knighthoods up the Queen's backside. On the other hand, I believe his knighthood should be restored, with an apology for it ever having been taken away. I see little chance of that occurring. ---Charles 15:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Charles, Anthony Blunt and Albert Henry were also stripped of their knighthoods as well, so therefore, Sir is not included, nor are any postnominal letters. The article has to be factually correct, so take away the 'Sir' and the CMG, then the article is correct. User:jtdirl was wrong to insist on including these in the article. - (203.211.73.10 21:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC))

Please show Wikipedia guidelines that state it should be done, as we don't use the rules of the British establishment here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The irony of that argument is that it's the "British establishment" that was responsible for Casement being granted a knighthood in the first place. If you accept that authority to use "Sir", then you must also accept the same authority for the removal of "Sir". Re FearÉIREANN's argument that "Wikipedia puts people in using their highest title received", I'm sure that policy was oblivious to cases such as Casement's. Normally, a title, once granted, stays for life, unless subsumed into a higher one. But in rare cases, a knighthood is removed. It's almost the same as saying he was never a knight at all - but not quite; he was properly addressed as "Sir Roger" between the time of getting the knighthood and the time it was removed. After that, it's plain Mr Casement. An analogy that comes to mind is Australian, American and other countries' senators - they're called "Senator XXX" while they hold that office, but once they leave the job they're back to "Mr/Ms XXX". Do we have any articles about people who at one time in their lives were senators, where we refer to them in the lead para as "Senator XXXX"? I seriously doubt it. See also Terry Lewis (police commissioner). JackofOz 22:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, we go by Wikipedia guidelines not by how another article does it. What if the other article is wrong? Also I've stubbed Terry Lewis (police commissioner) per WP:BLP, far too many unsourced negative claims. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it has been my experience that once a person has served as a Senator, they continue to be refered to as "Senator" even after leaving office. I have seen this done countless times. But, as One Night In Hackney has correctly pointed out, this discussion hasn't anything to do with convention or tradition in the U.S., the U.K., or elsewhere. It has to do with Wikipedia policy, and on that point, the indication is that the "Sir" should stay. ---Charles 22:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's certainly not the case for Australian ex-Senators. In any event, I've raised this question at MOS talk. I invite all interested parties to have their say at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Archive 6#Revoked/rescinded Knighthoods. JackofOz 04:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've re-worded the intro into what is hopefully an acceptable comprise, using Anthony Blunt article as a model, he was another "British Traitor" who was stripped of his knighthood. He was known as 'Sir Roger Casement' from 1905 to shortly before his execution, and was known as Roger Casement from birth to 1905 and again at death, and this is the name on his tombstone. Snappy56 18:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is being abused for propaganda purposes again here again. This entry is a muster for all that is wrong with Wikipedia. [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Mannerings (talk • contribs) 08:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The notion that Wikipedia would have an official policy of ignoring and/or flaunting the rules and conventions of a sovereign body in awarding and revoking honors is really too silly to contemplate. Wikipedia neither awards nor revokes knighthoods, nor does it have any authority to overrule or overlook the revocation of a knighthood by the authories that awarded it in the first place. Let's for goodness sake get real here, folks! Nandt1 (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Black diaries

The manner in which this question is being debated here is a farce. Sullivan was some 90 years old when interviewed by McColl. He subsequently withdrew the comments he supposedly made in the interview. It is hard to prove a negative, but I can recall no evidence of Casement actually meeting Sullivan. The nearest they got to one another was when RC was in the dock and S was on the bench in the Royal Court. George Gavan Duffy took instructions from Casement. I have seen the notes, they are in the NLI. Also, you are ignoring the lawyer who DID meet Casement, the US-American, Francis Doyle. Doyle told Casement about the diaries. He left a signed account of the meeting in the NLI. Casement was disgusted that the British should stoop to such methods, and wrote a letter to the authorities stating that they were forgeries, Doyle wrote. So please Wikipedia fans, why are you distorting the truth like this? Why concentrate on the discredited Sullivan nonsense and ignore Doyle. For a full account of McColl's fabrications, see Professor Roger McHugh's article in Threshold Magazine.

The comments on Casement's religion are a fabrication and deeply offensive.

The Giles Report was rejected by James Horan, the forensic expert commissioned by the Goldsmiths' Team to peer review the report. Horan's review has been published by the RIA.

The bibliography is utterly one-sided.

It is obvious that Wikipedia is being used as a propaganda vehicle to distort perceptions. Casement is a hate figure. Neutrality is essential. If Wikipedia is interested in the truth, it should go offline until it sorts out the quality problem. As things stand, it is a disgrace to all involved in it.

[email protected], Pforzheim, Germany

If the "Black Diaries" are classified until 2020, how was the handwriting comparison done? Eyeresist 03:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC) homosexuality or at least of deep platonic affection for other men.”

Extract (pp 521-2)from Jeffrey Dudgeon's book relating to Serjeant Sullivan's recanting: "Casement’s lawyers were to be involved in disputes and recriminations for forty years after the execution. Serjeant Sullivan, his senior counsel, took vigorous issue during the Casement controversy that raged throughout April 1956 especially in the columns of the Irish Times consequent on the publication of René MacColl’s book for which Sullivan was a key source. The Serjeant had had many discussions with his client after his first consultation on 12 June 1916 and could thus illuminate the matters in dispute. However his memory was poor (in 1956 he was 85) while he plainly relished, most of all, a proxy fight with his Irish separatist enemies. Indeed he wrote off his antagonists in letters to the editor as “Casement worshippers.” Much of the dispute centred around what Casement had actually told him on the question of the diaries and his homosexuality.

Sullivan was so divorced from the diaries, which he had never seen that he even surmised Adler Christensen had provided them. In an interview with the distinguished historian and journalist Robert Kee, Sullivan retold the 1916 story. Kee initially noted on 15 February 1956: “I have absolutely no doubt as a result of this interview that Roger Casement asked Sullivan to explain to the jury if the matter arose that there was nothing wrong about being a homosexual - that it was even a mark of distinction to be one” and that “Casement discussed his diaries as being diaries in the possession of the Crown and containing detailed accounts of acts of sodomy.”

By 21 February, Kee had had justifiable second thoughts about Sullivan’s remarks and reinterpreted his notes, instead writing “If certain material concerning Casement’s private life were introduced into the trial that there was nothing discreditable about the personal attitude revealed in it…I have little doubt that some diaries of Casement’s were discussed between Casement and Sullivan and that these diaries contained evidence of some sort, either of Casement’s homosexuality or at least of deep platonic affection for other men.”

In the New Statesman of 18 May 1957 Robert Kee took his scepticism a stage further and made a series of points about the diaries themselves; he reckoned there was no corroboration in style and content with the innocuous material in the NLI; that many homosexual entries bore a vague relation to a perfectly harmless, trivial diary phrase just preceding; and that many sexual items appeared at the beginning of a day’s entry. Two of these points are to a degree true but in essence amount to little. In the case of sexual material often appearing at the beginning - more often the end of a day - one must remark that much of Casement’s sexual activity was nocturnal and would therefore be recorded late in the night and last thing in the diary, or first thing in the morning. The matter of the relationship between sexual and mundane items just does not stand up especially in the torrid 1911 diary which Kee had not seen. The style was in many ways of itself, a diary style, (or one of several such styles) while there are no other private diaries extant to compare.

In the Irish Times of 16 April 1956 Sullivan felt obliged to rephrase his previous statements, having checked his memory. He conceded “On reflection, I perceive that he neither affirmed nor denied authenticity. He took up the attitude that we pygmies could not understand the conduct of great men and had no right to pass judgment on it…He was neither glorifying nor repudiating what was alleged against him.” Not to be outdone, Sullivan added “Everyone seems to have forgotten, as I have done myself that Casement was a megalomaniac.”

Nine days later, in a further letter to the Irish Times, Sullivan was finally forced to come completely clean. He honourably admitted that Casement “told me nothing about the diaries or about himself.” Sullivan had up until then been extrapolating an admission and a full discussion from Casement’s generalised remarks, which were probably uttered in the manner in which Gavan Duffy had tried to drill all concerned. It was not like Casement to be precise about his sexual status as the Dick Morten conversation also reveals. But it was well within his argumentative style to mention famous homosexuals of history in some sort of elucidatory and diversionary response. Casement in July 1916 did allude, cryptically as ever, to the diaries when he wrote to Gavan Duffy asking him “to protect my name” and saying “you know why I kept silent and why I did not refute many things as I might have done.” But he was undoubtedly less precise with Sullivan, who retired from the Irish Times correspondence and the controversy, dying in 1959."

So, did Casement have any girlfriends or fiancées that we haven't been told about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.154.9 (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Comma

Shouldn't there be some mention of the famous line that Casement was "hanged on a comma" (sometimes "by a comma"), on account of two Court of Appeal judges reading commas into the Treason Act 1351 (see the first paragraph of this PDF). -- ALoan (Talk) 13:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

There should. That's very good. When I get my books out of storage in a week or two I'll go over my Casement biography and try to expand the article a bit. I'll take a look at that link you provided as well. -R. fiend 14:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Was there any further research done on this? --Sliver7 15:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sexuality

This information, in general, is often included in Wikipedia articles merely as titillation and more often than not is based on inunnedo and rumor. The sexuality of the subject is almost never a matter of import and can almost always be considered "unencyclopedic". This section on the subject sexuality essentially says nothing except there are rumors and as far as anyone can tell the rumors cannot be confirmed. It's inclusion here and similar interjections in many,many other sketches on Wikipedia need to stricken. It is simply ridiculous at best and activist at its worst.

Outside of Casement's MI5 file and the disputed diaries at Kew, there is no evidence that Roger Casement as much as kissed any other person during his life. During his time in the Congo he was checked out prior to employment by Baptist missionaries. A leeter was sent to London stating Casement was of good standing and morals, suitable for employment by the mission. During his time in Germany, he kept a full diary, which, in contrast to the Kew documents, contains no sex at all, although he was with his supposed boyfriend most of the time. The Germans suspected RC was a spy, so he was observed closely, but they didn't notice his obsession with nocturnal cruising either.

It seems he had a very unusual sexual appetite. He only became aroused while under observation by MI5, or in documents which passed through their hands, even though he was not aware of the observation at the time. - [email protected]

Amusing but anachronistic. Casement's 1903 diary was written before MI5 came into existence.--Fynire (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but how do you know his supposed "[Black] diary" was written in 1903? Considering Dr. Audrey Giles and her team refused to do an examination of ink, paper and mere confined the 'independent' forensic examination (in 2002) to handwriting? Something to hide, Audrey? 109.255.236.104 (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

...(secretly) baptised a Catholic?....

I've just noticed that both this article and the Seán Mac Stiofáin article claim that both of these men had Protestant parents but were secretly baptised as Catholics. The Mac Stiofáin article says: 'Mac Stíofáin (who was baptized a Roman Catholic, despite the fact that neither of his parents was Catholic)'. The Casement article says that his mother 'had him baptized secretly as a Roman Catholic, but died when he was a baby.' These seem very suspicious claims. Now, why would anybody be "secretly" baptised Catholic especially when, in Mac Stiofáin's case, both parents were Protestant? If they felt so strongly about it, why didn't they become Catholic? Is the real link that both were British, the first British by profession the second British by birth, who betrayed their state's policies a more likely explanation for this story? The current story lends itself to the idea that "they weren't fully British though because they were really Catholic" rather than to the idea that they were British who disagreed with British actions concerning Ireland, a rational interpretation which is a much more powerful indictment of those actions. 193.1.172.166 20:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

To try and put this into context: At the time of Casement's birth in 1864, the Protestant Ascendancy dominated Ireland's social, economic and political life. Irish Catholics were denied the right to vote until 1829. Given this, Casement's Protestant father, who was in service to the Crown, might have felt that in the interests of his son's future prospects, it better for him to belong to this elite class. Casement's R.C mother, in line with the custom that one takes on the maternal religion, secretly baptised him a Catholic, indicating that she practised her religion. Like Constance Gore-Booth another Anglo-Irish revolutionary, who converted to Catholicism, Casement's deathbed conversion might have owed more to his identifying Catholicism with the nationalist cause in Ireland, than to any religious or doctrinal conviction. Natalie West 13:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Small correction here; Irish catholics had the vote again from 1793, but could not sit in parliament until 1829. The protestant Church of Ireland was disestablished in 1869; the catholic seminary at Maynooth had been set up with British funding in 1795. So by his 'rebaptism' in 1867 the 'elite' factor was irrelevant. Any Irish Jephsons that I have heard of were protestants; what proof is there that Mrs. C. was a catholic? It does seem that many protestant 'republicans' after 1900 felt the need to be seen to change sect. For that matter, is there any proof that he ever used the Gaelic form of his name? Has he been reinvented?Stamboul 18:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If you google 'Anne Jephson"+Mallow, you'll see she was from Mallow, and those Js were all definitely protestant landlords. Just the sort of girl Captain Roger might marry. The secret baptism sounds very unlikely, but there was an RC church in Rhyl (Wales) from 1863. Have any of RJC's biographers actually been to Rhyl to check out the register? What difference did it make if he then felt the need to convert again in 1916? Beyond being seen as a 'good boy' all along? He seems to have been more of a humanist than worried about any church.86.42.203.104 14:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Anne Jephson seems to have come from Dublin and was a Protestant, certainly at the time of her marriage to Captain Casement. Her sister Mrs Grace Bannister seems to have been a Protestant throughout her life but there is no known connection to the Jephsons of Mallow. Grace's daughter Gertrude wrote that Roger’s mother “though brought up a Protestant became a Catholic when her children were still young”. The reason given was that “Her father was a Catholic and her mother a Protestant and as was usual in those days the daughter of a mixed marriage followed the religion of their mother. Anne was brought up a Protestant but the warmth of her nature and a certain emotional strain revolted from the coldness of the Protestant faith and shortly after her marriage she found the Catholic faith…Anne Casement’s nature was too expansive, too beauty loving, too vivacious to find consolation in a religion that cramped, that denied, that suppressed and so she joined the Catholic Church and had her children baptised as Catholics.” [National Library of Ireland, Accession 4902/19]

There is another, related discrepancy. I do not think that the statement "So he was baptized twice, but never had First Communion or confirmation." can be accurate. A baptism in the Church of Ireland or the Presbyterian Church in Ireland would then have been recognised (and is now) by the Roman Catholic Church as a valid baptism as a Christian. That is why one speaks of being "received into" the Roman Catholic Church in the case of one who has been baptised in one of the other Christian traditions. There is no need to be baptised again. --Todowd 21:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

According to one of Casement's biographers, Roger Saywer:

1865 Casement baptised an anglican, 1868 secret R.C baptism, 1881 anglican confirmation, 3.8.1916 recieved first Holy Communion as a R.C,having been accepted into the Church, in articulo mortis; executed. Article probably should be reworded to reflect this. Natalie West 13:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Roger Sawyer's account is given in good faith, but not quite right. Casement was attended at Pentonville by Fr James McCarroll. He left a good account of what happened. Herbert Mackey recorded most of it again in the late 1960's. McCarroll found out that RC had been baptised a Catholic (presumably, Casement's sister Nina remembered it, or his cousin Gertrude Bannister heard about it) he obtained confirmation of it from Rhyl. He heard Casement's confession, but the Bishop of London, who had been made aware of the diaries, refused Casement absolution until he signed a statement recanting his actions, both private and public. Casement refused. Shortly before the execution, McCarroll gave Casement absolution and the sacrement of Holy Communion, defying the bishop on the grounds that RC was facing death. Casement was given the last rites and a christian burial. At some stage before the burial his anus was examined by a Home Office doctor. It was a busy morning at Pentonville. Cheering broke out when the execution was announced, but it stopped when others waiting outside went on their knees to pray for the soul of the departed.

Casement's supposed last minute conversion to Catholicism was a cause of much ridicule at the time, but it was not as last minute as some think. RC was seen attending the Catholic Church in Malahide before he went to America in 1914. He attended a mass in Irish in Limerick, said for the Volunteers around that time too. And of course, he had many contacts with Catholic priests when he was in Germany. Letters recently discovered in Clare suggest he supported the pope's peace initiative in 1916. [email protected]

Black diaries

The Giles Report, and a peer review rejecting it, by James Horan, have been published by the Royal Irish Academy. There is no need to rely on "indications". - kvm

We say "a simple|forensic handwriting comparison" but the indications are that handwriting was merely the main focus per the BBC:

On 12th March 2002 the results of the first ever fully independent forensic examination of the Black Diaries were announced at a press conference in London. The examination was carried out by Dr Audrey Giles, an internationally respected figure in the field of document forensics. It was commissioned by Professor Bill McCormack of Goldsmiths College, London, and jointly funded by the BBC and RTE. The verdict was as follows:

"The unequivocal and confident conclusion which the Giles Document Laboratory has reached is that each of the five documents collectively known as the Black Diaries is exclusively the work of Roger Casement's hand, without any reason to suspect either forgery or interpolation by any other hand. The Diaries are genuine throughout and in each instance. 'This investigation, based on impartial scientific analysis, should bring to an end more than 80 years of controversy.'" The main focus of Dr Giles' examination was handwriting analysis, which involved making direct comparisons between known examples of Casement's handwriting and the entries in the Black Diaries. As well as identifying similar characteristics, Dr Giles looked for inconsistencies that would indicate the work of a forger. Having found 'many similarities' and 'no significant differences', she reached an inescapable conclusion in favour of authenticity.

Rich Farmbrough, 09:23 27 September 2006 (GMT).

Whether or not he was a practising homosexual, a fantasist, or that the dairies were forged, Casement was hanged partially on irrelevant evidence, homosexual activity being illegal in1916, tipping the balance to a death sentence. Natalie West 14:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No; he was going to be hanged anyway, but the diaries (whether true or faked) were revealed before his trial to possible interest groups, such as Irish-Americans, fellow-diplomats, liberals and the Catholic church, and of course the newspapers, to ensure that they did not intervene or support him. In wartime, with the law as it was, and with the weight of evidence, he was going to be sentenced to death.Stamboul 19:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you explain all those others involved in the Easter Uprising who were condemned to death and later were spared to avoid creating martyrs, e.g. De Valera? So, no, he was not "going to be hanged anyway".

Casement was a dead man the moment he landed on Banna Strand. Hell, Pearse probably had a better chance of coming out alive. Dev was a special case, and arguably his American background and some lucky timing saved him. Casement, on the other hand, was a ex-British diplomat who had directly worked with the enemy in a time of war in an effort to harm England (which cannot honestly be said of any of the others, with the possible exception of Plunkett). He had treason written all over him. and he knew it. There was no way they could execute Sean Heuston and let Casement live, regardless of any sexual exploits. -R. fiend 16:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

RepublicanJacobite reverts (October 2008) additions to do with the Horan rejection but the initial preceding statement (as follows) is entirely unreferenced itself - "Forensic expert James Horan later rejected Giles' conclusion on the grounds that the "control" material (the "authentic" handwriting of Casement), taken from the Morel Archive, may have passed through the hands of British Intelligence after Morel's arrest in 1917." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.70.22 (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone take any responsibility for the truth of what is in here?

Or is Wikipedia a fraud? This reader would like to know. [email protected]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.60.234.246 (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

This article has improved a good deal since I asked this question, not least because of the link to the paper I did with Marcel Matley :-) However, Wikipedia is still a fraud. It cannot be that Wikipedia publishes a load of nonsense to deceive the innocent reader, until someone comes along by chance who happens to know something about the subject. There are other far more sophisticated efforts at deception out there, which will remain to fool the reader for years to come. If you want an encyclopedia, you need to vet the editors and have them take responsibility. If they publish obvious drivel, then they lose their editing rights.

The problem is that there is enough fraud as it is. Even serious academics indulge in it. The Casement trail is riddled with fabrications such as McColl's Sullivan interview. Even the Royal Irish Academy has put its name to thumping errors. Then there is the problem of intelligence service history. We will be a long time waiting for the official MI5 historian to give us an explanation for the forged Casement poem in MI5 records. Yet only the official historians have anything like full access to MI5 files. You will find the original of the poem "Lost Youth", which Casement wrote in 1914 in the NLI. The MI5 historian has wrongly claimed Casement wrote it in 1916 in Pentonville. The RIA duly published it as such in the book Roger Casement in Irish & World History (missing, incidentally from the bibliography). In fact, it was first published by Casement in the Irish Review in 1914. Don't hold your breath waiting for the academics to own up and tell the truth. I have seen the copy in MI5 files, it is an obvious forgery, uttered to discredit and harass Casement's supporters in 1916. [email protected]

Wikipedia's goal is to be a snapshot of the academic environment of the time. When better information comes along, it is integrated into the article. Wikipedia, however, is not the place for independent research, and more so, not the place to wage a campaign.

If you have sourced information disputing this article, you should add your information to create a more complete article. If, however, you find the article (or, in fact, the entire encyclopedia, you claim) to be "fraud" because the prevailing research of the time is contradictory to your own personal beliefs, then your issue is with those researchers and not Wikipedia itself. Contrary to your assertion, I think any good encyclopedia would act in a similar manner. It is an encyclopedia's job to summarize the facts that are available, just like it is a dictionary's job to define the words, and not create them. catParade 21:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Cat Parade, your contribution takes a cheap shot at my position, suggesting by innuendo that I am complaining because prevailing research is contradictory to my beliefs. I am complaining because Wikipidia is pretending to present prevailing research to readers. It is not. At times it is presenting drivel which has no basis in prevailing research and no basis in fact. It has nothing to do with my beliefs. If someone writes in here that Roger Casement died on the cross beside Jesus of Nazareth, that is not the state of prevailing research, it is drivel, and it has nothing to do with my beliefs. The problem is that it is not always easy to spot the drivel, so unsuspecting readers are being conned, defrauded, by Wikipedia. Who are you? If you claim to have any interest in the truth, please put your name to your contributions. Wikipedia editors should have the guts to stand up for what they write. That is the basis of honest research and honest journalism. Wikipedia is providing the platform for phoney research and pseudo-journalism, that is why I have an issue with Wikipedia. [email protected]

First, I sign all my posts with my username, and my userpage has my my contact info, picture, etc. Obviously, my name is already attached to everything I do here, and my entire edit history can be looked up with a click of the mouse.

Second, I did not take a cheap shot. I specifically said, if you have sourced information disputing this article, you should add it. If you do not, then yes, it is simply a matter of your beliefs. The fact that you took that as a cheap shot may indicate which of those two cases is true. Furthermore, if you have such information but do not improve the article, then you've just come here to complain. Wikipedia has plenty of critics who for some reason can't wrap their brain around the benefits of an encyclopedia that can be continuously and instantly fixed and improved, and I don't know how to make the idea any more plain. catParade 15:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheer up Kevin, wiki is not God, just put together by mere mortals. Of course Casement's story has been changed and realigned and that makes it interesting. As Catparade says, put in your references. Historian A says xxx -quote; historian B says yyyy-quote.86.42.203.104 14:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Catparade, I visited your profile, but I could not find your name there. There is no benefit in Wikipedia, it simply takes the market from honest researchers interested in finding the truth. It is a monumental con, and the sooner it is replaced by an honest, reliable, verifiable source the better. It is laughable that many Wiki fans are opposing efforts to stop people posting offensive drivel. If we can't even stop that, it is nigh impossible to stop the subtle distortions and propaganda in articles such as this one. Read Marcel Berlin's article in the Guardian. It says all that needs to be said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Mannerings (talk • contribs) 15:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't just revert wholesale. Pick out and explain those things that you think should be removed item by item otherwise perfectly agreed detail is binned. 86.143.63.147 (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Notice added by Matley:

I had no occasion to visit this page until today, thus such a late "taking of responsibility." My report on the Casement so-called "Black Diaries" is posted open access of https://archive.org. I have no knowledge of what the difficulty was that the author refers to about a posting having to be taken down.

Regards,

Marcel B. Matley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.162.25.246 (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Photo - trial of Casement

I don’t see the point of having the photo of (what I assume to be) the transcript of his trial. Every trial will have a transcript of its proceedings, but the document in which it is written is hardly a notable item. It certainly adds no value to the article. Also, it’s in the “The Black Diaries and Casement’s sexuality” section, whereas the previous section “Capture, Trial and Execution” would be the more appropriate place for it – that’s if it’s appropriate to have it anywhere at all in the article, which in my view is not the case. JackofOz 05:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Section renamed

I took the liberty of renaming the section on "Casement in popular culture" to "Memorials to Casement", because it seemed to fit the material better. However, this entailed removing this line: "Furthermore, Conan Doyle used Casement as an inspiration for the character of Lord John Roxton in the 1912 novel The Lost World." (Which did not flow well with the list of streets and organizations named for RC). I think the Conan Doyle reference would exist more happily in the article if it were accompanied by other "popular culture" references, if there are any. (surely there are songs and such about RC that could be referenced?) Bacrito 03:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

My edits reverted, I see. Any particular reason?

Not really following this, but in general, the smaller those clustering sections are, the better. I removed the lyrics of some entire song. Apologies to whoever typed it up. --Sammermpc 16:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Speech from the Dock

I consider it to be a very important section. I would not know were to begin to edit it down, as it is all revelent. This after all, is his last statement before his execution, outlining his motivation and rational. I would welcome suggestions. --Domer48 11:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Could we have the original source for it? A lot of these "speeches from the dock" were tidied up later.86.42.197.156 (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The first thing to remember is, this was possibly the most important speech of his life. He was going to be hanged, and this was the one oppertunity he would have left to vindicate himself. Now which part should stay, and which should go, I welcome suggestions. --Domer48 (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As my first post on this topic clearly shows, I have opened this discussion and ask for suggestions. Now one Ex-Admin has taken it upon themselves to try to start and edit war. While it is sad, it is also typical. Not once have they used this talk page. --Domer48 (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been transwikied to wikisource, which is exactly what wikisource is for, and exactly why we don't have entire speeches like that in WP. It'd been tagged for transwiki for months. -R. fiend (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This talk page topic has been here since 24 October 2007. You just ignored this! You offered no suggestions! Just an edit war, well we have all moved forward from that type of action, except you. Do not assume to tell me anything about wikisource or wikiquote for that matter, when you can not even use a talk page. Now revert your edit, and use the talk page. Your edit summeries though have indicated your attitude, and clearly show you never bothered to check this page first. --Domer48 (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Long quotes do not belong in an encyclopedia article. There must be a source that summarises what Casement said in a few words, and says what its impact was. I suggest something along the lines of:

• In his speech from the dock, Casement asserted that an English court was not a jury of his peers, and that he could not be charged with treasonable activity in England as he had not landed in England, but in Ireland. He told why he had felt it necessary to oppose British rule by armed force, saying that for asserting her right to self-government Ireland was treated like a convicted criminal, and went on: "If it be treason to fight against such an unnatural fate as this, then I am proud to be a rebel, and shall cling to my 'rebellion' with the last drop of my blood."

I'm sure that's not very good. It's only meant to give an impression of the length of paragraph and length of quote that is appropriate for this article. Scolaire (talk) 09:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Scolaire, your quite mistaken in thinking that your suggestion is not very good, in my opinion it is excelent. Your productive and constructive approch is in marked contrast to what has gone before. It's a welcome and refreshing start, thanks for that, --Domer48 (talk) 09:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The Rising

Casement was a Member of the Volunteers. If they took no part, why were they hung? --Domer48 (talk) 09:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

He was hung for treason. He was negotiating with the enemy during a time of war. He would have been hung whether there was a rising or not (presuming he would still have been caught). He played no active role in the Rising, as he was arrested days before it began. One could argue that his negotiations with Germany were an active role, but it's a bit of a stretch. He certainly didn't fight, which is what is implied when the Rising is mentioned in the template. And nowhere is it stated that the Volunteers didn't take part. Obviously many of them did, but not all, and not Casement. -R. fiend (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Provide a reference to say he played no part in the Rising. --Domer48 (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And what was he negotiating with the Germans holiday destinations, and was he on a fishing trip off the coast of Kerry come on he was an active member of the rising. Was Churchill not part of WW2 dont recall him fighting on the beaches, but using your logic it seems he wasn't part of the war BigDunc (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

His negotiating in Germany was independent of the Rising. He was there more than a year before he even knew the Rising was planned. When he did find out about it, there is evidence he tried to stop it (disputed, I know, but widely ackowledged). In any case, he was arrested two days before it began, so its obvious he took no active role in the fighting. He was part of the struggle of Irish independence, but not for the military engagement of the Easter Rising, just like one would say Churchill was involved in WWII, but was not an active participant in the Normandy Invasion. Anyway, this is why these templates are dumb; they assume everything can be pigeonholed into neat little categories when often they can't. -R. fiend (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Provide a reference to say he played no part in the Rising. --Domer48 (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Provide a reference that he did. -R. fiend (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is full of them, did you not read it? --Domer48 (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Saying "read the article" is not a source. The opening paragraph says he is "known for his dealings with Germany prior to Ireland's Easter Rising". "Prior to", not during. Do you deny that he was incarcerated throughout the entirety of Easter Week? (I'll source that if you really want me to, but I'd rather not waste my time on something both of us know is true.) What sort of action did he take from behind bars? I admit, this ii sort of a nitpicky point, but we should strive for complete accuracy, not oversimplifications. -R. fiend (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Provide a reference to say he played no part in the Rising, and read his speech from the dock. --Domer48 (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Provide a reference that he did. -R. fiend (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Things are hung, people are hanged.86.42.199.193 (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Referencing / citations

The article seriously needs to be referenced. I will start on some of it first chance I get. In the meantime could editors please reference any new material, as adding unreferenced material will only compound the problem? Regards --Domer48 (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Anne Jephson from Mallow or Dublin?

I've added a National Library of Ireland comment that she was from Mallow. As they were a Protestant family, it is possible that she converted religion before she "secretly rebaptised him". But is it really relevant when RC himself seems to have had no strong religious views until he faced the drop?86.44.154.9 (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Most people's ideas and attitudes are formed in their early life so it is always instructive to know what their family and backround was (e.g. Hitler and Vienna). The newspaper report of Anne Jephson's Church of Ireland (Anglican) marriage in Belfast’s Northern Whig of 26 April 1855 describes her as "Anna" and adds that she was the "eldest daughter of the late Jas. Jephson esq. Dublin." The couple married in St Anne's Church, Donegall Street, Belfast. She may well have converted as her son and many Protestant nationalists did. He is quoted as saying "no one could love the Irish people without loving the religion that made them what they were."81.158.161.39 (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've found a ref to a letter he wrote in 1892 to a Jephson of Mallow. Casement wrote of his mother: "She died when I was quite a child, and I only know she spoke of being related to Jephsons of Mallow, in my hearing, when a boy and since her death I never met with anyone whom I might make enquiry." That was his view as a young man.Red Hurley (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Irish LGBT person category?

Copied from User talk:BigDunc.

Thank you for pointing me to the criteria for describing someone as an LGBT person. However I must now ask you which historians say Casement was not homosexual? 86.161.16.132 (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

@User :86.161.16.132 -- Winston Churchill and Isaac Newton would fall into the same historical debate area, it might be a good idea to see how those articles are dealt with. Tfz 18:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reference to Churchill or Newton being LGBT! I think I know Newton did not marry but Churchill did (and had a gay secretary Edward Marsh) 86.161.16.132 (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It is covered here it is alleged that the diaries were part of a smear campaign, IMO they are probably not part of a smear campaign but others disagree. BigDunc 19:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC) But that is about the diaries' authenticity not about whether he was a homosexual. And the criteria for LGBT people exclusion is if 'historians' dispute the designation. There is no mention of historians so doing in the article.86.161.16.132 (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The only evidence of his alleged homosexuality comes from the diaries. I would not waste your time feeding trolls BigDunc. O Fenian (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

As O Fenian says if the only reason people believe that he was homosexual are the diaries and they are disputed, then it follows that his sexuality is disputed. BigDunc 20:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC) O Fenian is wrong if you look at some of the books on Casement. But the point remains the test is 'historians' which you do not answer.86.143.63.172 (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you are saying, are you saying you have a book which proves his sexuality without mention of the diaries? BigDunc 22:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Mention of the diaries in a book is irrelevant to the rules of the test, to which you drew my attention, as to whether historians dispute his homosexuality. For that there are no attributions therefore Casement meets the test and his name can surely be added again. 86.147.53.235 (talk) 08:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.53.235 (talk)

Casement's sexuality was disputed, apparently until recent inquiries were made into the Black Diaries. Nonetheless, those inquiries are not 100%. There is dispute, therefore the category does not get added. O Fenian (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You just ignore the wording if it gets in the way of your absolutism O Fenian, edit warring a speciality. The category rule for LGBT is plain and met. The question of sexuality is not disputed by historians, the authenticity of the diaries, which is a different issue, may be. Under your protocol nothing can ever be proven or categorised. Just leave it be for a change. If someone thinks Casement was not a homosexual they can write up their findings and publish.86.164.245.209 (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I see no mention of the word "historians" on the inclusion critera, and even if there was I could provide one with ease. O Fenian (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2009

It was Big Dunc who found the categorisation rules for LGBT people where the word historian is used. I can't find it again. 217.43.236.187 (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Pension

There is conflicting sources for Casements retirement. What alternative sources are there?--Domer48_'fenian' 16:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Irish political prisoners, 1848-1922: theatres of war By Seán McConville pg. 555 say June 1913. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thomas & Bellot's leading cases in constitutional law: By Ernest Chester Thomas, E. Slade pg.208 1 Aug 1913 --Domer48_'fenian' 16:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ó Síocháin, Séamas, 2008. Roger Casement: Imperialist, Rebel, Revolutionary - this most recent definitive biography gives reference for the correspondence on his retirement on p. 357. They refer to some six letters passing between Casement and the F.O. in June and July 1913. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.113.180 (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it referenced by Ó Síocháin? The reason I ask is what about George H. Knott bio, or the two books cited above? In addition, in your own edit summary you say it granted in July or August. Which is it? If it's August, it's supported by Slade. However, being unsure yourself you in your edit went with August. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is heravily referenced in Ó Síocháin. It is however unclear what precise day he was paid up to. On p. 358, he writes "During August the terms of the pension arrangement was clarified with Law and FO officials. The initial Treaury arrangement would have left him one month without pay". Best perhaps to say he retired in the summer of 1913. It is most certainly not 1912. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.113.180 (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

LGBT cat again

I think it clear that Casement meets the crtiteria for inclusion in the Category:LGBT people from Ireland. The article currently states that his most recent biographer accepts his homosexuality as a settled matter of course. Those who oppose inclusion might reflect that the imputation of homosexuality is a negative only in the minds of homophobes. I will wait for further comment before restoring the article to the category.Irvine22 (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

As there is dispute among historians as to whether he was homosexual, he does not go in the category. O Fenian (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think gay people have the right to expect that gay historical figures shouldn't be kept in the closet. Let's be open and honest about Roger's sexuality. There is no place for homophobia on Wikipedia. Irvine22 (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

So your back from your block with more disruption, this has been discussed numerous times and the cat doesn't go in the article, there is disputed about whether he was gay or not so doesn't go in. 17:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Remind us of the categorisation rules for LGBT persons. --Fynire (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The parent cat that the one the disruptibe editor is trying to add states Articles about notable LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) people who have publicly declared their sexual orientation or gender identity, or whose sexual orientation or gender identity is known and not debated by historians. BigDunc 18:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Where does the quote you provide come from, BigDunc? Also, are you quoting the criteria in full, or selectively? And how were the criteria arrived at? They seem to me to be quite homophobic. Irvine22 (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"I have never given life to anyone myself, and my celibacy makes me frugal of human life..."

Roger Casement in 1910, from The Amazon Journal of Roger Casement page 144

The editor of this journal, Angus Mitchell, follows with a footnote "Those who believe in the 'authenticity' of both 'black' and 'white' diaries should ask themselves exactly what Casement means by this reference to his 'celibacy' when, according to the Black Diaries, he was anything but a practicing 'celibate'... Page 144

I have also published an biographical article about one of the men Casement was said to have had an intimate relationship with. At the bottom of that article, I added Angus's thoughts on that subject, and I am pasting the section. The subject in question is Andres O'Donnell.

"In The Amazon Journal of Roger Casement, editor Angus Mitchell notes that Andrés O'Donnell is the subject of a few rumors regarding Roger Casement's sexuality and time in the Amazon. One particular example pointed out is from Robin Furneaux's The Amazon; The Story of a Great River which claimed Casement had a sexual relationship with the Barbadians Stanley Sealey, Westerman Leavine, and the Company manager O'Donnell. Mitchell emphasized that while Casement from O'Donnell to be the least offensive manager in the Company's administration, Mitchell believes "it is wholly untenable that his feelings towards the man went beyond this." Pointing out that O'Donnell had three known native wives, with which he had children, and when Casement returned to Barbados in 1911, he found out that Andrés O'Donnell had married Stella Bruce Turney. Shortly after this revelation, Roger pursued an arrest warrant and the trial of O'Donnell, which never came to fruition. The Barbadians Sealey and Leavine also had Indigenous concubines that were given to them by the Company as "wives.""

Angus Mitchell also noted that Casement wrote an average of 3,000-4,000 words a day in the Putumayo during the course of his 1910, investigation, when the Black Diary and Amazon Journal of Roger Casement were said to have been written. I find it unlikely that Casement would have been able to keep up with an entirely separate diary on top of the Amazon Journal of Roger Casement. It is also important to note that the Peruvian Amazon Company employees were watching Casement through out most of his stay in the Putumayo. Any sexual encounters witnessed by these employees would have likely been reported and used against Roger Casement's character. Mitchell also highlights a number of other discrepancies between the Black Diary and the Amazon Journal, which has led me to believe the black diary is not genuine. I am interested in hearing the opinions of others. Arawoke (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

If there's no verifiable/reliable proof that this guy wasn't straight, then the Cat don't belong. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

My own opinion is he probably was Gay but as it is disputed it doesn't go in. BigDunc 18:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

In effect, the 'case' is closed. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, as it usually gets added by trolls every so often. BigDunc 18:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The innumerable sexual encounters with males Casement describes in his diaries are verifible proof that he was gay. Their authenticty has been proven scientifically. Only a couple of writers and biographers (and only one alive) dispute these matters. Why should they have a veto when they give no proof he wasn't gay? And why is it an issue now? --Fynire (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you just being a dick or have you not read the criteria it says not debated by historians, it is so it doesn't go in. BigDunc 19:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to read the criteria in full. O Fenian above says that the word "historian" does not appear in the criteria. You seem clear that it does. Do you have a link? Thanks! Irvine22 (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No criteria thus no discussion so its goes back by default. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fynire (talk • contribs) 16:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering you know what the criteria are and admitted he doesn't meet the criteria, I suggest you stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. O Fenian (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact here is the proof of your disruption. BigDunc gives you an exact link, which you thanked him for. O Fenian (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I told you before I could not find that reference and still can't find its home source. Would you be so kind as to provide that also? --Fynire (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Found it now. Casement's homosexuality is not currently debated by historians. Whether his diaries are authentic or forged, in whole or in part, is still debated so the LGBT category is fine and meaningful for readers. --Fynire (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It does even not say "currently", and even so you openly admitted that Casement's sexuality is still disputed here. I would also warn you that this article is under 1RR restriction. O Fenian (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It uses the present tense - is debated. --Fynire (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That is an erroneous phrase you have constructed from the original text, but it is redundant anyway. You admitted his sexuality is still disputed, there seems to be little more to discuss when you have admitted he does not meet the criteria. O Fenian (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Proofs he was gay are overwhelming. Not even one indication of heterosexuality or relationship with a woman. But how many of the contrary

I think the fact that he is "claimed" by LGBTs is relevant, just as he is claimed today by so many other groups that he may have disliked. Also the anti-gay nature of Irish society was a major factor in this denial. It was a crime until the 1990s and is still against Roman Catholic doctrine, the religion of most Irish nationlists and which he is claimed for. Let his sexuality remain disputed and let both sides' sources be named. None of us ever got into bed with him, so we don't know either way.Red Hurley (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

He was obviously homosexual and not heterosexual. 90.3.206.246 (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is it that there is a much higher burden of proof for historical LGBT people to be labelled as such as opposed to straight people? PitterPatter533 (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Irish name

The source for this doesn't exist. I presume the article mentioning "Ruairí Mac Easmainn" has been deleted or moved on the Taoiseach website. Did he use the Irish form of his name? And just out of interest, how does Roger become Ruairí? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It's closer to Rory. I'd like to know when he was first named as Ruairí Mac Easmainn, or if he ever used it himself. Maybe he did, but I'd like to know from some expert.Red Hurley (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Still more WIKIPEDIA DRIVEL, RACIST, SECARIAN ANONYMOUS DRIVEL, THE SOONER WIKIPEDIA DIES THE BEttER.YOU GUTLESS ONES;USE YOUR NAME,RGS [email protected]

There has been noforensic examination of the Jan 1911 diary, I have seen it,obvious forgery. Down withthe wikipedia fraud! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.220.228.40 (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right, he was homosexual. 90.3.206.246 (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Split the Black Diaries into a separate article?

Does anyone else think the section of this article on the 'Black Diaries' and Casement's sexuality should be split into a separate article? There's plenty of content there, and at the moment it's dominating this article, making it seem like it's the most important thing about Casement. That section also arguably strays from the topic of this article somewhat; given that the veracity of the diaries is disputed, extensive discussion of their history and contents doesn't really belong in a biography of Casement, but a separate article linked from this one. (That might also solve the issue of the {{LGBTProject}} template - it could be placed on that article but not on this one, as a compromise solution.) Robofish (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The section takes up a large part of the article and given that the controversy over whether it is a forgery is a significant topic in itself, it's a very good idea to make it into an article in its' own right.Autarch (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I would agree, but the LGBT thing applies to both articles if it applies to one. What evidence do we have that he was "straight"?Red Hurley (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Reading the article as someone who knew almost nothing about Casement, the Black Diaries section is striking because it is not at all a description of the Black Diaries, I hope there's no offence in saying that it is a poorly focussed and disjointed debate regarding their authenticity. As such it interrupts the biography and lowers the overall quality of the article. I think it should be split off, but it would be good to replace it with an account of the diaries themselves. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to prune the existing section down to a more appropriate size, rather than fork content which does not belong in either article in the first place. For example lines like "Dudgeon's research throws new light on Casement's Irish relatives, friends and contacts, for the first time providing some biography for an alleged lover who features in the Black Diaries, one Millar Gordon" sourced only to Dudgeon's book are not appropriate for a biography of Casement or an article about the Black Diaries, it is like something from a book review. I am wary of just removing that sentence due to it spoiling the flow, but the Dudgeon information does seem a bit excessive. The whole Black/White diaries information is excessive as well. While we may all agree that the information does not belong in this article, we should be looking at whether it should be mostly deleted (by deleting I mean pruning the existing information, not deleting the whole section) from this article and not just forked somewhere else. O Fenian (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

There, I've just added Dr Daniel Vangroenweghe's expert comments on Congolese dialect. Vangroenweghe adds a useful chronology of works on the diaries; the forgery theory was first set down in 1936 by a Dr. William J. Maloney who never saw the diaries. And did we know that Michael Collins was shown them in 1921 and thought that they were genuine? As regards editing, you have to mention all if you mention any.Red Hurley (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been trying to clear up the large backlog of split tags, hence I have split off the section about the Black Diaries in order to get things moving. I won't mind if the new article is renamed (I had to think of something) and I especially won't mind if someone writes a new summary. Op47 (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

RC and Margaret Dobbs

Some charming details here, which may inform and enlighten and even be used in the article.86.42.216.211 (talk) 10:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

start new article for the black diaries

As I had no idea who Roger Casement was and landed here from Vargas Llosa's "The dream of the celt", I found that this section although necessary for a complete review of Casement's life as it is so complex with much controversy it should really be put in a new section. It would also be interesting to have a cross-reference to other famous people who despite doing good work have fallen foul of either such defamation (if it is defamation) or their sexual proclivities have reduced the effectivity of their work.Gillie12 (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)gillie 12

Here, here - let's have an end to it all. The black diaries and sexuality section seem to be dominating the whole article. A brief description would suffice - headed with see main article about all those funny goings on ... and let's decide within 4 weeks ... no objections - let's go! Francis Hannaway 15:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal from WikiProject India

I have removed the WikiProject India tag from this page. Roger Casement was never anywhere near India. The tag seems to be wrongly placed. Prad2609 (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC

ALERT! Deletion of WP Article on the Black Diaries

Readers of this page may be concerned to know that the separate article on the Black Diaries, recently spun off from this article, was just deleted as a result of a complaint by Kevin Mannerings (or his co-author Marcel Matley or both) that the article infringed their copyright in various articles they have written on this subject. As I understand it, the challenge facing those of us who believe this subject should be properly addressed on Wikipedia would be to produce a substantially different article on the diaries (or section for the main Casement article) that avoids the use of material by these two authors. Are there other users out there who would be interested in working on such a challenge? Nandt1 (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have now left a message at Kevin Mannerings' Talk page encouraging him to let the community know precisely which are the passages of the (now-deleted) article on Casement and the diaries over which he claims copyright. No response to date. If there are other users out there who share the concern about this article, you may want to encourage him to make his claim of copyright transparent, so that the work of rebuilding the article can get underway. Nandt1 (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the best course of action is to write a section about the diaries for this article first - making sure to cite material correctly and not use close paraphrasing. Then in doing that the section can be expanded into an article as it grows.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I would personally have a lot of sympathy with that suggestion. Perhaps we can find volunteers to participate? Nandt1 (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me you and me are the indicated individuals. I don't have much knowledge, but I'd be happy to work with you to assure that the text is appropriately sourced and written.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It is great that you are willing to help. Perhaps there will be others. I am not at all knowledgable myself beyond what was in the old WP article, and I suffer at present also from not having easy access to sources other than what is online -- i.e., because of how I am fixed personally it is not easy for me just now to get to a major library. I was in touch with an admin and she provided a link to an article by Mannerings and his co-author which provides one indicator of their material that was in the old article and that would need to be avoided: http://home.wmin.ac.uk/marketingresearch/2179casement.htm She stressed, though, the need for extreme caution in not inadvertently incorporating copyrighted material from this author. You (and others) may want to read the admin's comments first-hand at her own webpages, which are: (i) Mdennis (WMF) and (ii) Moonriddengirl. Bye for now. Nandt1 (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

For some time, various other commitments are likely to delay any input on this from me. Do we have any other volunteers? Nandt1 (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I might try, and avoid Herr Mannerinks at all costs. Nothing wrong with him having a view, but it's a bit thin anyway and not peer-reviewed so far as I can see.Red Hurley (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Great if you can make a start. Basing it on solid sources, as you imply, would be key. Nandt1 (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Mannerings is entitled to his copyright but I've looked for proof of his expert status without success and what I've seen (http://home.wmin.ac.uk/marketingresearch/2179casement.htm) fails NPOV - he is an enthusiast. What a pity that he doesn't want his findings known, as he makes some good points. Most people would disagree with his view that - "Roger Casement’s Diaries must be among the most important documents of modern Irish history." Written Irish history goes back 1,500 years.Red Hurley (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As I understand it, Mannerings's American co-author, Matley, has served as an "expert witness" on handwriting issues in various US legal cases. One has the impression that, of the two of them., he is probably the one who brings the greater experience to bear on handwriting issues per se. This said, if you search Matley online, you will find that he has sometimes taken some quite controversial positions over the years (and that his own professional training/expertise has itself been subject to some tough questioning). Worth digging into. Nandt1 (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I have created an article at Black Diaries. It is short, but there is plenty of room for expansion. There are enough sources cited to get you started, and there is also a bibliography on the BBC History page. The category is the first one that came into my head. I'm sure somebody can come up with a better one. Happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

This is belated, but thank you for this public service! Nandt1 (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

As currently written, the Black Diaries section of this Casement article is almost incomprehensible. I found it difficult to work out which of the various authorities cited had come down on which side of the authenticity debate. I note that the historian Thomas Pakenham, in his 1991 The Scramble for Africa, accepts the authenticity of the Diaries, and he is certainly no enemy of Casement. If someone else doesn't have a go at improving it ..... well, I might have to try doing it myselfThomas Peardew (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Kathleen Clarke's view of Casement

(Kathleen Clarke was the widow of Tom Clarke (Irish republican) )

"Sir Roger Casement “made a fool of himself” in his dealings with the Germans, according to the wife of executed Easter Rising leader Tom Clarke. Kathleen Clarke described Casement as someone who really knew nothing about Ireland and who considered himself a leader of the Irish Volunteers despite being nothing of the kind." ... “He went off to Germany and started things that the revolutionary group here didn’t want,” she said. “They didn’t ask Germany for men. All they asked them for was arms. And he was trying to get men.” She described Casement as the “aristocratic kind and he assumed that when he went into any movement, ipso facto, he was one of our leaders, if not the leader . . . and what could he know of Ireland, when he was all the time out of it.”

Link: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/roger-casement-made-a-fool-of-himself-kathleen-clarke-1.2399390 (21 October 2015). Mind you, she was wrong about most things.78.17.55.36 (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Casement was widely ridiculed because of his knighthood and because he had worked for the British government. (86.133.255.214 (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC))

No he wasn't. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Roger Casement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141022161353/http://www.irishbrigade.eu/other-men/goey/goey.htm to http://www.irishbrigade.eu/other-men/goey/goey.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Secret baptism as a Catholic?

After the family moved to England, Roger's mother, Anne Jephson (or Jepson) of a Dublin Anglican family, had him secretly baptised at the age of three as a Roman Catholic in Rhyl, Wales.
Er, um: why would an Irish Anglican have her child baptised as a Roman Catholic, and in Wales, of all places? Why, I ask? Just curious. Thanks for any insights. Quis separabit? 02:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

There's a big discrepancy with the acualité, according (1951) to the priest who arranged for RC to be properly baptised in 1916, Father JM Cronin. He had been approached by Gavan Duffy to find a priest, on the basis that (quoting RC): "I am a baptised Catholic. My mother, a Catholic, during a holiday in Aberystwyth, Wales when I was very young, had me baptised by a Catholic Priest." ..

Source is the Bureau of Military History file of Fr. Cronin, WS 588, now online.

Llandudno (18 miles away from Rhyl) was entered, but then crossed out for Aberystwyth. There is no mention of Rhyl. Aberystwyth is over 80 miles from Rhyl and Mrs Casement didn't have a car. Raising the glaringly-obvious question, why didn't she have him baptised in Dublin at any time, that is still full of Catholic churches? It all seems like "makey-uppy" history. RC wanted to become a Catholic in 1916 because he realised that the Catholic ethos of the rebellion meant that he would be written out of the story as a non-Catholic.78.17.11.74 (talk) 12:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

His mother Anne became a Roman Catholic after her marriage and thus wanted to have her children become Catholics too. Theologically an Anglican baptism would have sufficed thus a repeat baptism was not vital. It was indeed in Rhyl in 1868 - see National Library of Ireland manuscript 18459. The family lived in England at the time and until Casement was 12 when he went to live in Ballymena. His mother had died in 1873 when he was nine. 2A00:23C8:4D83:2C00:F0CD:CA52:3609:F3FF (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

"British" humanitarian

Casement was not British so I see now reason to call him that.Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Once known as Sir Roger Casement CMG (until his honours were stripped for his treasonous actions), Casement was British his entire life, including as a diplomat, in which capacity he became known as a humanitarian, not for his actions related to the Easter 1916 Rising. If you keep making ridiculous, amateurish, ignorant, POV-pushing edits, I am going to file a complaint. Quis separabit? 13:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

He was born and raised in Ireland. follow WP:IMOSApollo The Logician (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:IMOS, Roger Casement and Tom Crean should not be described as "British". Per common sense, CS Lewis should be. I really hope the two of ye aren't going to end up blocked over edit-warring on articles of dozens of people born in Ireland pre-1922, but I'm not holding my breath... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Roger Casement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228100752/http://www.nli.ie/1916/pdf/5.pdf to http://www.nli.ie/1916/pdf/5.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060502020945/http://www.1916rising.com/timeline.html to http://www.1916rising.com/timeline.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060412103105/http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/jobrien/reference/ob73.html to http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/jobrien/reference/ob73.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050211010900/http://stephen-stratford.co.uk/time_report.htm to http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/time_report.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Guilty...

"Guilty, they're all guilty."

©Officer Short Shrift, The Phantom Tollbooth (1961) by Norton Juster, with illustrations by Jules Feiffer.

"I say that Roger Casement did what he had to do." MinorProphet (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hyde

The article is currently disfigured towards the end by a large tract of unreferenced spam touting the theories of one 'Paul R. Hyde', a conspiracy theorist who does not appear to be a reliable source. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)