Talk:Michael Collins (Irish leader)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

'President of the Irish Republic'

A recent edit makes the claim that by virtue of being Head Centre IRB, Collins was also 'President of the Irish Republic'. Strictly within the internal logic of the IRB structure there may be some basis to this, but if the title is linked in the article President of the Irish Republic, the difficulty with the assertion becomes apparent. As things stand the claim is over simplistic and misleading. Comments please. RashersTierney (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I meant to revert the edit sooner due to unacceptable citing. I have done so now. I believe Collins actually became president of the IRB after the consitution of the IRB was changed to remove that particular clause, but would need to chekc dates. Certainly if the 1920 date in the IRB article is correct, it was after the removal. O Fenian (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The constitution was only changed after Dev started calling himself that while in America. Admittedly, the main impetus behind Dev's presumption was the suggestion of Joe McGarrity of Clan na Gael. And no, that's not OR, that's from Devoy's bio. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Question - Does 1RR apply to this article per

There seems to be a determined effort by one editor, by repeated undiscussed reverts, to impose a particular view wrt the IRB (and which is essentially peripheral to the main topic). RashersTierney (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The rule is 3RR, and you have no grounds for removing the information other than your own POV since I have verifiable and credible sources (Coogan and Devoy's biographer). Coogan states explicitly that under the IRB's bylaws the President of the IRB's Supreme Council is also President of the Irish Republic and Devoy's biographer corroborates that information. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The Troubles lasted 1969-1998 so I fail to see how a rule directed against anything discussed for that time period is relevant to the life of a man who died in 1922. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you take a close look at "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I've tagged the article as being included within the scope of the said arbitration case. It quite certainly falls within it, for the ARBCOM wording was: "All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland". All users are advised to keep in mind the arbcom restriction of "WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period)". Happy editing :) Snowolf How can I help? 21:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As regards referencing, the disputed edits are a mess, and an issue for the proposing editor to address. For example:

Earlier while in America, Dev had begun using the title "President" while speaking across that country trying to raise funds, a move which brought him into conflict with some members of the IRB, whose constitution and bylaws declared their own president, Collins in this case, President of the Irish Republic, has this reference "Coogan, Tim Pat. The IRA: A History, p. 76".

This book by Tim Pat Coogan has been reprinted and updated multiple times. P76 of the most recent edition has no mention of the IRB. The issue in question is alluded to at p 99 but far from how its presented with this edit. No mention for example of the overly familiar (for the purpose of an encyclopaedia) 'Dev' , nor use of the pseudo-authoritative term 'bye-laws'. Unless these have been edited out from an older edition, they appear to be nothing more than editorial commentary by the applying ed. What has The Supreme Council of the IRB, ... voted unanimously to accept the Treaty, with the single notable exception of later COS of the IRA Liam Lynch. got to do with the article in question, and why was the ref'd edit

In the process Cathal Brugha remarked that Collins was not a senior military man and yet Arthur Griffith was describing him as the man who won the war. (Mackay, page 239), removed with the perfunctory edit summary; Relevance?. What has the fact of Aiken becoming Chief of Staff IRA after Collins death got to do with this article on Collins?

The 'IRB' on both sides of the Atlantic are being presented in these edits as a single unified structure, the real authority behind the revolutionary government. This, historically, is highly questionable. RashersTierney (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Brugha's statement, besides being incorrect factually is a blatant ad hominem attack which was included because the editor has an idea of Collins inconsistent with the proposition that Collins is not the devil incarnate. There is nothing substantive about it, its claims are in direct opposition to more objective statements included in the opening paragraph of the article.
My edition of Coogan's book is 1994. The IRB, of which Collins was president, was the guiding force behind both the Easter Rising and the War for Independence. The vote of its Supreme Council is directly relevant to aftermath of the Treaty.
The IRB did not exist as an organization in America, as you should know. Its first fraternal organization, the Fenian Brotherhood, ceased to exist entirely in 1880, but the IRB had switched its relationship to the Clan na Gael long before that.
Aiken's later status helps place him in history, no matter how embarassing it is to you that he once supported Satan Incarnate. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I hardly know where to begin with this. You deleted a ref'd statement attributed to Brugha because you felt he was 'unfair' to Collins? Seriously? It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to 'right a perceived historical injustice'. This edit should be restored. Do you now intend rectifying your ambiguous book reference giving year, publisher etc? Considering your stated aversion to ad hominems, there seems to be less reluctance when it comes to having a go at editors who challenge your edits here. Edits that have no direct bearing on Collins are 'fluff' and should be removed as such. It was you who raised the term IRB in relation to the dispute during de Valera's US tour. Coogan names Devoy specifically. You sort it out, its your contrib. And please don't presume to lecture others on what you think they know or otherwise. RashersTierney (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
The quality of referencing by this editor really needs some scrutiny, as has been already pointed out by O Fenion above. This most recent edit incorrectly changes an ISBN 10 and publisher for a book of a different title and year, albeit by the same author, and in the process annuls a correctly formatted reference. If others here are content with this sort of nonsense then so be it, but I have better things to do with my time. RashersTierney (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I think you're going a bit far here, RT -- if you go to "Book sources" and pull up both ISBNs on Google Books, they appear to be the same -- look up phrases in the preview edition, and search for them in the snippet edition, and you'll find them word-for-word. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
For the record isbn 1879373718 and isbn 0312295111.The content may be the same (same number of pages), but it may not be, and the titles and years don't correspond. This sort of thing shouldn't have to be second-guessed, which is the purpose of including ISBNs in the first place. The edit appears to show a cavalier approach to referencing. RashersTierney (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
This is a bit like arguing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. I got the ISBN from Amazon, but it was the 1993 edition by the same publisher. The one in the article now comes from the inside page of the book itself, not that it is of any more dire importance than the pinhead angels. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Question of reward for capture

The idea that the British placed a bounty of 10,000 pounds on Collins' head is a myth. The story was invented by Collins himself, to gain support prior to the vote on the Treaty. In my opinion, this entire article is poorly written, poorly documented, and biased in the extreme.98.215.210.156 (talk) 12:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

A Nevil Macready memo to John Anderson may actually be the source of the 'myth'. Collins himself put the sum at £4000. RashersTierney (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
There was a bounty, but not a direct one if I recall. I believe it was for the person responsible for the killings of RIC men, which in effect was Collins but he was not named. I will look at some books later, I know it is detailed in at least one if not most. O Fenian (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Name

http://www.litriocht.com/shop/product_info.php?products_id=4878 its Mícheál Ó Coileáin in Irish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.172.163 (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to look at File:Anglo-Irish Treaty signatures.gif, and Michael Collins: The Man Who Made Ireland by Coogan (page 33) confirms Míceál Ó Coileáin to be correct, amongst many other sources. O Fenian (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
A c with a dot over it, ċ, is a lenited constant, see Irish orthography. This was a common way of writing ch in the early 20th century Irish script. I've added a ċ, to the Irish name, because the Treaty signature page has a c with a dot over it. The source quoted by the IP, uses modern Irish spelling for his first name. Snappy (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

G. K. Chesterton

The cover blurb of a selected work of G.K. Chesterton mkes the claim the "The Napolean of Notting Hill" inspired Collins to his revolutionary ways. this sounds a rather improabale, or at least overblown claim, ut I wonder if anyone has any background on it Epeeist smudge (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Tim Pat Coogan appears to support the contention. Peter Hart dismissed it "...The Napoleon of Notting Hill (A novel by G.K Chesterton erroneously rumoured to have influenced Collins)...".. Take your pick. RashersTierney (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Signature

Someone could probably pull Collins' signature from the last page of the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Many other biographies have this and Collins deserves it too, especially since it's available. --75.3.201.6 (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Alleged middle name

Michael Collins did not have a middle name. See Michael Collins A Life by James Mackay page 18 - "The parish register shows that he was christened Michael, although he went through a phase in childhood where he assumed a middle name, James (after his mother's father), and sometimes signed his name 'M.J. Collins', but he dropped this affectation as he got older". 2 lines of K303 19:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Béal na Blá v Béal na mBlath

Not using the official name flies in the face of what Wiki is supposed to be about. The fact that secondary sources are idiots who have tried to introduce a "narrative" into the death of Michael Collins should be irrelevant. Béal na Blá does not mean "The mouth of flowers" as some have tried to imply, it means "Mouth of the Ford". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.140 (talk) 07:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Béal na mBláth. How many reliable sources use Béal na Blá? Wikipedia doesn't bend due to one man's letter writing campaign, and it's not for advocacy either. 2 lines of K303 07:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Collins' alleged remarks

Many historians believe Collins never actually said the IRA was only weeks away from collapse, and that in any case the lack of ammunition would not have been any problem at all as he would have just continued raiding British army stores for more. (92.7.20.237 (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC))

Which historians? — Jon C.ॐ 16:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Stephen Ambrose was one. It is laughable to claim that the IRA was about to collapse, and this quotation should not be given in the article without any challenge. At the time of the ceasefire in July 1921 a big operation had been planned to wipe out every enemy agent in Dublin and men were in their appointed positions when, a half hour before the agreed time, an order to cancel the operation was received from the Dail Cabinet. A major ambush involving eighty officers and men was also planned for Templeglantine in Co. Limerick and the men had been in position for several days. (92.7.20.237 (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC))

Comment on "Michael Collins in popular culture"

While it is true that the Laughing Boy song from Brendan Behan's play "A hostage" (this is actually how the title was translated into Greek,has become one of the most popular political songs in Greece, this only came by through a process of decontextualization and naturalization into Greek politics. The play was staged in Greece in April 1962. A year later, Grigoris Lambrakis MD, an athlete (marathon runner), doctor, leader of the anti-nuclear and peace movement, and parliament member for the Democratic Left party, was murdered by extreme right wing thugs, acting on the orders of senior police officers, who unsuccessfully tried to cover up his murder as a traffic accident. Soon (but even more so after the release of "Z", the Costa Gavra film on the affair), the song was interpreted as a song about his murder; and a crucial change in the text of the song was introduced in the 1966 recording of the music of the play: "our own people killed the laughing boy" (this is a translation into English of the Greek text) was changed into "our foes killed the laughing boy". After the fall of the colonels' dictatorship, the text was changed again, in concerts as well as in popular use, into "the fascists killed the laughing boy". At the same time, the date in the "On the eighteenth day of November" song was changed into "17th November" - an oblique, and totally meaningless and unrelated to the narrative of the lyrics reference to the 1/11/1973 students' revolt against the dictatorship. Similarly, all the references to the Easter Uprising and the Republican Army were misinterpreted as references to the "People's Democratic Army", the Communist militia during the Greek civil war and the reference to the English burning the capital, as a reference to the intervention of the British army,on the side of the Government forces, during the Communist insurrection in Athens, in December 1944. Somewhere along the road, of course, both Michael Collins and the message of Behan's play were lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.137.110 (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

"Assassinated"?

Collins was armed, in uniform, and ordered his subordinates to stand and fight when his convoy was ambushed. He was no more "assassinated" than any other soldier killed in combat was "assassinated." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.94.226 (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree and as per WP:WEIGHT we should stick with the normal "killed" or "shot and killed" which is what I've put into the article. He was not "assassinated" as per the common meaning of that term. --HighKing (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Why is the term "assassinated" being used in this context? At a quick glance, most references use variations of "shot and killed". I'm aware that the definition of "assassinate" is that of a prominent figure killed in a surprise attack - but not to get into an argument of the precise meaning of "assassinate", we use references here, and at a quick glance, most references appear to stick with variations of "killed" as in "shot and killed" or just "killed". --HighKing (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, seems like there isn't any objections or any other comments on use of the word "assassinated". I'll change it back to the original "killed" unless someone feels strongly about it. --HighKing (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections

Bravo to everyone who's corrected typos and bits of code. I tried to get them all. Thank goodness for Wikipedians! Puma prowler (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Puma prowlerPuma prowler (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Question of "original research"

About the "original research" alert that's been posted here. I think this has popped up since the major re-organization & additions done by myself, late 2013-ish.

I don't think there's any actual original research in this. But I'll re-check. Thanks for keeping us honest. Puma prowler (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

On birth and death places

Should these name a political entity at the time of birth and death or a widely recognized place name such as "Ireland". Even if the former, the edits I reversed were incorrect. Certainly he was born in Ireland (since Ireland per se was a recognized division of the UK) and then if we wish political notation he would have died in the Free State of Ireland (not the Republic of Ireland). Is it not simpler to say the recognizable and informative and simple Ireland (as well as it being the current official name)? Juan Riley (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The OR banner

Not very helpful is it? Were whoever put it there to note the mishmash made of references etc as the article was reorganized...I would agree. Is OR the default claim banner when references are being slowly corrected? Juan Riley (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC) In fact, the more I look at the OR banner the more it looks like vandalism. So I have removed it. Juan Riley (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I would reinstate the OR banner-considering that there are numerous published biographical sources from which competing interpretations might be cited, there are a lot of statements which appear to lack direct support. The style of the article as a whole reads more like an essay. Martinlc (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Banners are not the answer. They provide a certain amount of satisfaction to the people who put them there, who generally then do nothing more to improve the article, but that's about it. At best, they are an irritation to those who want to read the article to find out what the man was about; at worst, they positively discourage people from editing, because they think the standard has been set too high. If the style of the article is a problem, then someone should simply edit the article for style, to make it more encyclopaedic. If lack of citations is the problem, there needs to be somebody committed enough to go through it and cite what is verifiable and correct or delete what is not (I am not that person, by the way). If nobody steps up to do the work, then adding banners achieves nothing except making the article more ugly. Scolaire (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
By the way, none of what I have said is intended to endorse the assertion that the original addition of the banner was vandalism. I think that is a preposterous suggestion. Scolaire (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay I should have said the OR banner looked misguided. A banner noting lack of references etc is quite acceptable on this article. I have tried a bit but do not have the sources in hand. Juan Riley (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm still a relatively new Wikipedian; so I'm not sure what "OR" or "banners" are. I've added some citations where flagged. There is some essay-ish language in the article, alright. But I also agree that anyone who is able to pick out places where it could be made more encyclopaedic, and can correct the style, should go ahead & do that, if they think it's called for. Puma prowler (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Religion

It was my understanding that the "Religion" field of the infobox in a biography is left blank unless religion was a defining part of that person's life. I have seen it removed from several articles for that reason. Collins was not the leader of any Catholic group. The article does not even say whether he practised his religion or not. I do not think it necessary or appropriate to include it in the infobox here. My viewpoint has nothing to do with "hiding it away". --Scolaire (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Collins was unquestionably raised a Catholic. He was not a very actively observant Catholic [see T P Coogan, "Michael Collins" 1990]; and could be critical of what he saw as the church establishment's sometimes counter-productive role in Irish affairs. However, in his intimate correspondence with Kitty Kiernan [edited by Leon O'Broin "In Great Haste"] Collins makes explicit reference to having visited church, lit a candle, etc, on a regular basis. He was a practicing Catholic.
His religious identity certainly is a central issue in his life as an Irish political leader. Albeit that the independence movement of 1916 - 1923 expressly identified itself as against religious sectarianism, preferring "the common name of Irishman".
Religion has a huge role in Troubles-related issues. As many may realize, in this context, it's often admittedly less a question of belief, than of cultural identity. During the 15th-17th centuries, to which the fault lines of modern Irish politics trace their roots, post-Reformation Europe was dividing into two armed camps: Catholic and Protestant. While England went Protestant, the native Irish / Celtic population of Ireland stayed Catholic. During the Elizabethan period, the Ireland v England conflict was swept into the general Protestant-Catholic divide, and since hardened along those lines. Catholic or Protestant was often enough a question of life or death, in 20th century Northern Ireland. These religious identities remain a very prominent part of Ireland's culture today. It's entirely appropriate that his religion be included in the info box. Puma prowler (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Scolaire. Collins was a practicing Catholic, but then so were the vast majority of the population, and as you point out, the Independence movement was non-sectarian. In addition, this is not a Troubles-related article; the Troubles did not start until '69. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Check the banner at the top of this Talk page. This is a Troubles-related topic. One's religion was a huge issue in Irish politics, and Collins an Irish political leader. Suggesting that the article's language should be dictated by political platform of his party is a political statement. It's not a neutral encyclopaedic POV.Puma prowler (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's appropriate for somebody who admits he/she is "still a relatively new Wikipedian" to be telling users of 10 Years + standing to "check the banner on the top of the page." In fact, the banner refers to an Arbitration case dealing with the Northern Ireland Troubles, and it means that because the dispute spilled over into earlier Irish history, all such articles are affected by its remedies. It does not mean that Michael Collins was involved in the Troubles of the late 20th century.
The War of Independence was not in any sense a religious war. It was a war to achieve independence from another country. Your last two sentences make no sense to me. The language of the article, if it is "dictated" at all, is dictated by the Manual of Style. Whether and when the religion field in the infobox is filled is a matter of convention; it is not "dictated" by anybody or any thing. My understanding is that it is not filled unless religion is a defining characteristic of the subject's life or career. Unless it can be shown that Collins fought the British because they were non-Catholics rather than because they were oppressors, or that he went down on his knees to pray before taking any action, his religion was not a defining characteristic of his life or career. Scolaire (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutral language on Troubles-related issues

In the section "Civil War", one sentence changed to more neutral wording (re: Wikip policy on "Troubles"-related articles): that the Free State Army was "armed & funded by the British" changed to "armed & funded with British cooperation."

The existing language as it stood supported a particular political viewpoint about the Civil War, which favours one side. It cannot be denied that the British substantially assisted the Free State Army with armaments, some funding and other logistical support. However, the language as it stood is characteristic of the outlook that only those who took the anti-Treaty side were "real" republicans, and that those who favoured the Treaty (unquestionably the majority) were all "traitors" working for the British. Puma prowler (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you're possibly looking for a lack of neutrality in something that was already pretty neutral and factual. "Armed and funded by the British" is correct, because that it's what happened. "armed and funded with British cooperation" doesn't make sense and actually sounds less neutral. What does the sentence now mean? The Irish army wasn't able to arm itself and had to be directed to armaments suppliers by the British? It needed permission from Britain before it could get money from the government? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Killed

The introduction only needs to say that Coolins was killed in the civil war. It doesn't matter that he was shot, the result would have been the same had he been blown up by a hand grenade or run over. (ColmMcCrory (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC))

No, it does not need only say that he was killed, 2 extra words in the intro is not too much detail. He was shot, this is a fact, we give all the facts on Wikipedia. Snappy (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
It is relevant, it's like saying Ayrton Senna was killed in a car crash. The context is important as it gives a fuller picture. It seems strange to object to giving detail. Bevo74 (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, "Collins was killed in an ambush" is like saying "Senna was killed in a car crash." Saying "Collins was shot and killed in an ambush" is like saying "Senna was speared in the head by a piece of upright assembly and killed in a car crash." Scolaire (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This has to be a prime candidate for Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars! Seriously, guys. "killed in an ambush" or "shot and killed in an ambush"? Will people imagine that he was stabbed in an ambush, or hit on the head with a hurley in an ambush? It makes no difference if it goes in or not! Neither version is better or worse than the other. What's worse, the Death section doesn't even say "he was shot". It says "Shots were exchanged. Collins was the only fatality." What dreadful prose! Why do people argue about two words in the lead instead of trying to make the article readable? I suggest you run a straw poll. Though don't be surprised if responses are low – or nil. Scolaire (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

What? Lame edit wars are Wikipedia's life blood! Anyway, its a factually accurate detail which is 2 extra words in the intro. I agree with you about the prose in the Death section, that could be improved. Perhaps newbie ColmMcCrory could devote his energies to improving that instead. Snappy (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
So much for life's blood. Anyway, I agree with folks above that stating a fact in two extra words is no problem with TMI in the lead. (and the dreadful prose). However I don't think the "newbie" comment by Snappy is helpful. Juan Riley (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Ditto. Perhaps Snappy could devote his energies to improving that instead. Perhaps I could. The question is, will anybody, or do people prefer to argue about trivialities? Scolaire (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
You are so right User:Scolaire. Honestly, this like many articles I comment on and can some times make corrections on content...I do not have the resources to improve this article as it deserves to be. Not making an excuse...am pointing out my short comings. Juan Riley (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It's no happenstance that arguments about exactly how to say Collins died quickly become heated & involve strange & emotional tirades concerning the use of a word. That's the way it's been since 1922. Nor is it too much to say that opinions on this tend to divide along chronic Troubles-related fault lines.

The language Scolaire objects to above was not careless; it was chosen in the interests of absolute accuracy. No post-mortem on Collins exists. The exact nature of his wounds is not definitely known. Historians have been arguing about it for decades, & continue as we speak. Exactly how he got them is an unsolved mystery, shrouded in many suspicious unanswered questions. To quote J M Feehan ("The Shooting of Michael Collins: Murder or Accident?" Mercier Press 1991):

"As matters stand there is no real evidence to show what caused his death, and we can only presume it was caused by gunshot ... There is no evidence to show he didn't die of a heart attack, or that he was not poisoned and that the wounds were not inflicted afterward..." Puma prowler (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "language" I'm supposed to have objected to. Was it "Shots were exchanged. Collins was the only fatality"? If so, what evidence have you that it was "chosen in the interests of absolute accuracy"? In the middle of a shoddy paragraph in a shoddy article, the probability that it was "chosen in the interests of absolute accuracy" is pretty low, as is the probability that Collins died of a heart attack or poisoning. Your quote – which is from S.M. Sigerson, not J.M Feehan – sounds like the Kennedy conspiracy theory to the power of ten. Kennedy conspiracists have two shooters on the grassy knoll. Collins was fired on by two dozen shooters on hills on both sides, but no, Sigerson decides he must have been poisoned simultaneously by pro- and anti-Treaty and British agents, and his corpse then carried to Béal na Blá to be shot, and carried off again. That's just what we need on this article. Call me when you get a reliable source. Scolaire (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The North

To a neutral observer, this section appears highly skewed to a 'Republican' bias in its use of language - particularly the continued use of the phrase 'north-east statelet' to refer to Northern Ireland? I concede that 'The North' is probably a more generally accurate catch-all for that part of Ireland pre-1922, but it seems strange to-the-point-of-deliberate to not mention 'Northern Ireland' once.

The sentence "Massacres and pogroms against Catholics in the northeast were unleashed by Anglo-ascendancy leadership there in an effort to crush the IRA and drive those of indigenous Irish descent (primarily Catholics) out of the northeast counties" appears to project a race-war agenda which is firstly innaccurate, a dangerous one sided view of an intricately detailed civil conflict, and addresses a broader concept than a biography of Collins. Protestant ascendancy certainly, in terms of a political and religious class, but Anglo-ascendancy is wildly incorrect considering Ulster protestants identified with a scottish, dutch and french lineage, but not an 'Anglo' or English one. The concept of an indigenous Irish catholic population is also inaccurate, as protestants and catholics, particularly in the north, had lived in established settlements stretching back to the Plantation era (in my view, and the view of history books, making them both equally 'indigenous' peoples). So this seems to be an argument the author is making about 16th plantation policy, not 20th century civil war.

Finally, words like 'collusion' and 'statelet' are popular modern phrases in Northern Ireland, so there appears to be an attempt at revisionism here

Would welcome your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icanseeformilesandmiles (talk • contribs) 15:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It did seem deliberate, I have changed the heading to read Northern Ireland but won't make any further changes without asking but I do see your point. There are defiantly improvements that can be made to the article the inclusion of things of questionable relavance like his father being the 7th son of a 7th son and predicting his sister would later become a nun, and un-encyclopedic language, particularly in the personal life section, which should be changed. 188.141.85.57 (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Truce

"It must be noted, that De Valera had been elected as head of the Republic. Thus why did the Irish have to negotiate anything with a foreign state? Terms of the treaty included subsidizing the Empire and allowing the British navy access to ports . The subsequent war between the IRA and the Free State troops cost millions of pounds . De Valera resigned upon the signing of the treaty. It has been noted that Woodrow Wilson did not back Irish independence. Although Belgium's sovereignty was maintained , Ireland was not granted freedom."

This paragraph seemed oddly out of place. It's poorly written and feels more like emotive rhetorical argument than anything else. "Thus why did the Irish have to negotiate anything...?" etc. If it were removed I don't think anything would be lost from the section. Defusenik (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I concur that it seems best to just delete this POV. Unfortunately much like this remains in this article. Juan Riley (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Lack of middle name

You would think with the dozens of biographies of Collins his supposed middle name would appear more often, but it rarely appears except in poorly researched books. The new source cited even explains the source of this error, "The parish register shows that he was christened Michael, although he went through a phase in childhood where he assumed a middle name, James (after his mother's father), and sometimes signed his name 'M.J. Collins', but he dropped the affectation as he got older." His birth certificate can be viewed on many places on a Google Image search, he is simply registered as Michael.94.6.178.254 (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

OK I finally found it in Google Books. ----Snowded TALK 18:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
My edit did include the Google Books link, I believe the misunderstanding occurred due to me adding an archive.org link to update the dead Irish Times link. The book sources the middle name, the Irish Times sources the Irish name, apologies for the confusion.94.6.178.254 (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
No problem, it was fun reading through to find it ----Snowded TALK 18:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Relationships with women section

I have removed the following paragraph:

Collins's predecessor in the independence movement, Charles Stuart Parnell, was defeated by a sexual scandal. Collins's detractors have occasionally attempted to raise similar issues. He was reported to have pursued numerous sexual relationships during his teenage career in London [127] (albeit while living under the roof of an older sister) but no scandal concerning his sexual life has ever been substantiated.

The source cited was Michael Collins by Tim Pat Coogan. On perusal of the source the closest I can get to anything in the paragraph is on page 20 (1991 edition) which reads "Even in the midst of other pre-occupations revolutionaries have traditionally found time for women, and Collins was far from being an exception. Women were strongly attracted to him and he appears to have had several girlfriends". That a young man had "several girlfriends" hardly seems like a scandal, and the book does not attempt to present it in that way. The whole paragraph is making an argument the the book does not, if these unnamed detractors have are detailed in reliable sources please cite them.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 10:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The whole section appears almost essay like to me, are there any objections to this being pruned entirely?DanceHallCrasher (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I largely agree. Paragraph 5 (re Kitty Kiernan) would be worth keeping; paragraph 2 also, perhaps, albeit not under that heading. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
No problems keeping paragraph 5, although it does tend to state the obvious. 241 letters between any 2 people would give an invaluable insight into their relationship, it is not something unique to Michael Collins. Paragraph 2 I am less certain of. The two books cited (without page numbers) are a collection of biographies of sixty-five women activists and a collection of speeches, letters, memos and so forth written by Michael Collins. As with the example above, I am concerned that a history of feminist activity in Ireland is being combined with things said by Collins to reach conclusions not made by either source, the phrase "This was the political climate Collins grew up and prospered in" suggests the link being made may be somewhat tenuous. I would prefer to err on the side of caution and remove the paragraph unless evidence is provided it is accurately sourced. Many biographies have been written about Michael Collins so I see no need to use opinion pieces such as this as a source for the article, but it would suggest that our article may be painting his relationships with woman in a slightly favourable light.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
At a further look, yes, you're right about paragraph 2 - it does seem to be OR/synthesis. I'd support removal. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I have removed the offending section. The legacy section appears to cover the essence of paragraph five with "Collins bequeathed to posterity a considerable body of writing: essays, speeches and tracts, articles and official documents in which he outlined plans for Ireland's economic and cultural revival, as well as a voluminous correspondence, both official and personal". I am unsure whether his correspondence with Kitty Kiernan is important enough to be emphasised over correspondence with other people so I have not added anything to that section, I have no objection if others feel it appropriate though.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Fassbender connection

Despite the quote by Michael Fassbender, there's nothing publicly available connecting his mother to Michael Collins that I'm aware of. Is Fassbender's claim sufficient to list his relationship as fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelCarl (talk • contribs) 02:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Michael Collins (Irish leader). 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:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Collins (Irish leader). 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:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Collins' initial selection for death sentence

Wanted to get the opinion of editors here before adding, but Collins describes his initial selection by the British "G men" into the line for execution, but having "heard his name being called" he moved across the building to find the caller, only to be included in those who were being parolled. Tim Pat Coogan describes it well in his biography of Collins here: https://books.google.com/books?id=mZgmCwAAQBAJ

I have the written version at home and would include it as the citation. This story would seem to fit the general tone of the article and Collins' life as "hiding in plain site" while not creating a large section of unnecessary text.

If there are no objections, I'll draft up a recommended section and post it here for review.

Squatch347 (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


Below is my proposed addition:

Rather than: Arrested along with thousands of other participants, Collins was imprisoned at Frongoch internment camp in Wales.

I'd have: Collins was arrested, along with thousands of other participants, following the surrender. Before being transferred to Frongoch internment camp in Wales he was processed through Richmond Barracks. At this location, Collins was identified by a sorting process overseen by British Intelligence "G-Men" as someone who should be selected for harsher punishment, including execution. While waiting, he heard his name called out. In an effort to identify the speaker he moved to the other side of the building, and once there, stayed. This movement placed him in the group selected for lighter punishment and was, as Historian Tim Pat Coogan describes, "one of the luckiest escapes of his life." Coogan Citation

Squatch347 (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

That seems to be an improvement, though "historian" does not need a capital h. Other than that, go right ahead. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Ha, of course you are correct, thanks for the catch! Squatch347 (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Irish name

The initial spelling issue was rapidly resolved. Thereafter ... well, it seems that someone was having a bad day, and it all went downhill. Any further concerns about the article can be raised in a new discussion when the dust has settled, and everyone refocuses on WP:TPG, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Collins's Irish name Mícheál has been incorrectly spelled as Míceál since December, sourced to a 2010 story in the Irish Times. I corrected it yesterday, with a ref to Meda Ryan's Michael Collins and the Women Who Spied for Ireland. I hope users will agree that WP:RS would rate a book by an acknowledged expert on the subject above an article by a couple of journalists with no known expertise. At the same time, I removed a ref sourcing the fact that Collins's middle name was not James, for the good and simple reason that there is no mention of a middle name anywhere in the article. My edit was reverted by Squatch347 with the edit summary, "User removed description of Collins. Please discuss proposed changes on the Talk Page given this page's inclusion in remediation [sic] protection". So now I'm discussing it here. Please state what "description" was removed, or why my edit was otherwise wrong.
tl;dr addition: The Irish Times story concerned a 1922 document, which was probably signed "Míċeál Ó Coileáin", which is nowadays rendered as Mícheál. The Irish Manual of Style states that the dot should be replaced with a "h". Scolaire (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, nothin wrong with what ya did.80.111.164.98 (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes agree with changes. Ceoil (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting. Now I don't have to worry about "remediation protection", even though it's over 24 hours since my previous revert. Scolaire (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I changed the spelling in December as there was no h in the source that was present at that time. Your source is superior, thanks. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
For a change that fundamental, at least a few sources should have been cross-checked beforehand. This is why competence matters. Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Is such a comment necessary or in any way productive? You are implying I am incompetent because I conformed the spelling to the source present at the time? Incompetence is citing the ch spelling to a source which contradicted it. In any case, you are free to add to the article if you wish; the article would benefit from your competence in these matters. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Its a statement of fact. A significant political figure, and you, wading in, obviously lacking in pre knowledge, changed the spelling of his native name based on a single 1922 newspaper source. All I am saying is that "at least a few sources should have been cross-checked beforehand", either you consider that diligence or not. Note all the fuss created here now as a result; please be more careful. Ceoil (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I think what Hrodvarsson did was absolutely right. The guideline says be bold, not "cross-check a few sources before doing anything as major as correcting an apparent spelling error based on the pre-existing cited source." "All the fuss here" was not created by that edit, but by someone else's knee-jerk revert when I fixed it. I think an apology might be in order. Scolaire (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I dont think so. Being bold shouldn't mean dragging up decades old newspaper sources to make fundamental changes to the native names of historically significant figures. You may have different standards, both wrt reliable sources and as to how we treat drive by people under misunderstanding. Your actions here, playing both sides, are most hypocritical. Ceoil (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Firstly, Hrodvarsson didn't "drag up" anything. The source (less than a decade old) was already there. It was there as a citation for Mícheál Ó Coileáin, but in fact it didn't say Mícheál Ó Coileáin, it said Míceál Ó Coileáin. Secondly, a one-letter edit is not a "fundamental change". If it was so fundamental, why did it take three months for anybody to notice? If it was that fundemental, why didn't you find a proper source for the correct spelling of his name years ago? Finally, I am not "playing both sides" – I was never on your side and I never had any problem with Hrodvarsson. In fact, I commend Hrodvarsson (and I "thanked" him), for bothering to explain his edit, while on the other hand I found your attitude very unpleasant. Just saying "I agree" in answer to my post does not entitle you to take the moral high ground and lecture somebody on how to edit – especially when what you say goes directly against Wikipedia guidelines. Are we to rename WP:BOLD as WP:Drive-by and say it is disruptive? I take back what I said earlier; it is not the person who reverted me, it is you that have created all the fuss. Scolaire (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Wow, but fine, I have the measure of you now least there was any doubt before. I earlier took you on the strength of argument, seems I was wrong and an unfocused belligerence was more at play. Water under the bridge man. Ceoil (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
The belligerence was all on your part. It was a civilised discussion before you went off half-cocked. Scolaire (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Ha ha, you are were looking for reassurance and validation, having come off badly as you often do on many other articles. So tell the rest to somebody that cant see through such transparent behavior. "half-cocked", yawn, some self reflection please, maybe also read "wp:comptence". Ceoil (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Have read through the article and edited; dear god help us all if you and Hrodvarsson are setting the standard of what wiki is capable of. It's frankly, terrible, barely connected to reality, going half cocked in several directions with scant regard to historical record, or in places, achievable human ability; swiftly claiming the British were right all along (with no evidence), or no hang on the Irish are somehow gods c. Scolaire you are giving the impression of - its all under control, I have this, but from a scan of the article, and digging into your claims of authority, could not be less impressed. I am leaving this self reinforcing disaster. Ceoil (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
God! Come down off your high horse, will you? It wasn't me or Hrodvarsson who wrote this article. Out of 4,500 edits, 41 were by me, nearly all of them removing crap, and 23 were by Hrodvarsson, mostly minor but some of them adding useful content. Yes, the article was terrible – that's why I never attempted a major edit. We could hardly be said to be "setting the standard", and I most certainly neither said nor suggested that it was "all under control", that I "had" it, or that I had any "claim to authority". And yes, your edits of last night improved it some, and you are to be thanked for that, but "copy-edits" that introduce words like "recordes" (later changed to "recorde") and "amature" – I'm not impressed. Taking out "The Collins family were part of an ancient clan" with an edit summary of "an ancient clan? pff", but leaving in the equally ridiculous and equally unsourced "for the 20th century, the long hidden Ó Coileáin clan of Uí Conaill Gabhra, once the most dominant sept of the Uí Fidgenti, produced Michael Collins, or Mícheál Ó Coileáin" – not impressed. But worst, for somebody that lectured another editor on the need for "at least a few sources to be cross-checked beforehand", you didn't add one single source in your 31 edits, either for what was already there or for what you added. Sure, competence is required, but that includes not looking at the mote in your brother's eye. Happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 10:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
See below Scolaire. The more I look, the less I am impressed, blatant POV, blatent copyvio, blatent sock puppeting, etc etc. We seem to have different views of article integrity, certainly "high horse" stuff, certainly worthy of wider investigation. Ceoil (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the guy below. You are accusing me and Hrodvarsson of blatant POV etc etc. on the basis that if we made a few edits, we must be the vandals and the trolls, have low standards and a warped view of article integrity. Your personal attacks on me are becoming more and more unacceptable. If you continue this will be going to ANI. Scolaire (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I have already escalated. If you now suddenly have such low involvement, why have you been so shrill and hysterical on this talk. Because you have not put in real investment or due dillegince, flitter about with unfounded opinions just so you can be heard, and lack character and are just that way? Might make sense. Nonetheless, there is a major issue with this article, no matter what ye say, and it needs eyes. Ceoil (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mass deletions of sourced information

User:Ceoil has removed a lot of sourced information from the article in what perhaps appears to be a drunken tirade. I do not see any reason not to include this so I have readded it.80.111.164.98 (talk) 09:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Apart from being loaded and hardly based on cold historical assessment, terms such as "spirit of self-sacrifice", "Intensely hard-working", "His personal warmth and charm", which you restored, indicate a romantic flowery view, very dated, not at all today's language, and as such indicate a major copyvio problem with the article, and it should probably be opened for wider investigation. My impression so far today of it and its gaurdians; walled garden. Ceoil (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
It is sourced using reliable sources. Wikipedia should report what reliable sources report. Who are you to decide if it is based on "cold historical assessment"?80.111.164.98 (talk) 10:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Reliable sources cherry picked from about 1930? No you miss the point. Also, there is evident close copying going on, which seeps through in the dated language employed here. Sorry, but those are the fact. Ceoil (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
How do you know they are cherry picked? That's a weird assumption to make. I had a look at the sources and they are from 1980, 2003 and 1990, not 1930. If you have a reliable source that contradicts the information you have deleted please present it.80.111.164.98 (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I've challenged you on specific claims. Its not for me to prove a negative and find sources that say Collins was not "intensely hard-working" etc; the burden is on you to (a) defend this as a general historical consensus (b) prove that its not whole scale copyvio, not a cut and paste job from a rather dated web source. Until either of these are satisfied, I'll be reverting. Also, (c) please have the stones and integrity to use your regular username here, rather than hide behind an ip. We have the wiki-blame tool, remember. Ceoil (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
You are the one who made the assertion that the sources were cherry picked. Back up that assertion.80.111.164.98 (talk) 10:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
No, thats not how wiki works; the burden of proof is on you. I'm one inch from opening a major investigation on Scolaire‎, who probably should be blocked, given what a surface skim has revealed here re his approach to adding "content". I'm assuming the IP is you Scolaire‎ based on DUCK, as ye have woken up at the same time, use similar <hear no evil> language, and your first response was also to discredit the messenger, in very similar word patterns. Ceoil (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Please see burden of proof 80.111.164.98 (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking at these contested segments - the first and second segments come across as grossly floury and not of encyclopedic tone at all. The third and fourth segments are also...effusive...and could be written in a more NPOV tone, that is, if they need to be there at all. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Items of contention

Okay folks - need to get consensus on these segments. I request that BrownHairedGirl please fully lock the article until we resolve this. And invite wider opinion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Casliber: if you want the page protected, please ask at WP:RFPP. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Also, the page is under sanctions and the IP has just made two reverts to Ceoil's one revert...and you're the admin watching it..you gonna look at that then? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

80.111.164.98 you are already aware this page is under 1RR sanctions. Stop edit warring. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Ceoil's edits in their entirety. Everything that he removed was unencyclopaedic. I do not believe that the IP is interested in improving the quality of the article. Scolaire (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, 80.111.164.98 has been proven to be an evading editor. GoodDay (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Now blocked, so I don't think any further discussion is needed. Scolaire (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to reopen some of the discussion of Ceoil's edits. Quite a few of the changes are excellent and have updated the language to a more NPOV. A few though do seem to be unwarranted. Below is a summary of the edits I think should be discussed, the rest of his edits I support as well.

[1] This is an edit that I believe both Ceoil and Scolaire have put forward, though I could be mistaken on the latter. It alters the meaning of the text here (Scolaire fully removes it) to imply that Collins himself is described at brainy, rather than that he "comes from a brainy family." This reference is sourced (though the source needs to be updated to page 106) and is warranted, imo, for a biographical entry. Family origin and characteristics cited by British intelligence officials would seem an apt addition to understanding the background and life of he individual.

[2] I'm not sure why this was removed. "WTF" doesn't give us much to go on for rationale. Tim Pat Coogan uses the same language in his biography on page 6, so I'm not sure there is a warranted rationale for removing it. I'm open to a more detailed defense though.

[3] This edit removes an entire paragraph with no accompanying explanation. That paragraph is also sourced and verified in TPC's biography as well. I'm curious as to the reason it was removed.

[4] I'm not sure this is editorializing, it was an expressed policy of the IRB to drive out the RIC so it could establish its own institutions.

[5] I initially thought this paragraph should be included, but reworded, but doing a bit more research I can't find where the source, Chrissy Osborne satisfies [6]. She appears to be a podcaster without any formal training. Fully support this paragraph's removal.

[7] How is this section specious? His plans definitely seem to have been put on place by the civil war, and it is relevant to the flow of the article as it detracts from efforts to nullify the border commission.

[8] Agree with this initial removal as it was an uncited section. However, it is present in Coogan's work on pgs 372-377. Given that proper citation, this section should probably be restored.

[9] I'm curious why you removed the section on plenipotentiaries?

[10] The first section's removal seems unwarranted, it is a sourced description of his behavior during the negotiations. Fully support the second removal for the same reason as above, overly hero-worship language and likely not a valid source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squatch347 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to comment on the content on its merits. Just having a citation is not enough to include something:
  1. I've taken out the "brainy" sentence altogether. Regardless of whether it was him or his family, a comment by the British secret service (which secret service?) describing him/them as "brainy" is not sufficiently relevant.
  2. Again, a claim that he came from an ancient clan, whether or not Tim Pat said it, is unencyclopaedic. You won't find it in any other biography of Collins (by the way, the edit summary was "pff", not "wtf").
  3. Same again. His father's death-bed prophesies belong in hagiographies, not encyclopaedia articles.
  4. "In turn, though, the retreat of the RIC drove the British towards more radical and violent responses" does sound like editorialising to me. I'm not bothered one way or another about the paragraph generally, though. Maybe a more straightforward text could be re-added (though a citation would be good).
  5. Since you support removal, there's no need to comment.
  6. There is no 6.
  7. Yeah, "[Civil War] put Collins's plans for the north on hold; he was killed before he could pursue them any further" looks rather like a secondary school essay. Not needed.
  8. A bit problematical, because you linked to the current article, not a diff. Did you mean this? If so, I would support some well-researched discussion of Collins's involvement or not in the assassination, but not the restoration of the paragraph as it was.
  9. I would agree with adding back the "plenipotentiary" paragraph.
  10. I can't see anything about his behaviour during the negotiations in this. It's in the "Personal life" section. Did you mean to link to something else?
Hope this helps. Scolaire (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Indeed it does, and that is very clear rational, and it seems I owe you something of an apology. Sorry, you evidently know the sources are far from taking the approach from that the IP was agitating from. I was taking it from all sides this morning, though thats not good enough. Ceoil (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
First, I am still not an expert in wikipedia linking, so I might well have screwed up some of the edit links, apologies for where that has caused some frustration.
1) The reference to his family being brainy as written in British intelligence files I thought was an interesting insight into both the level of British intelligence collection at the time and as a good foreshadowing of his importance and success later. The page reference is 106 in Coogan's work, and he has a primary source citation as well. Agree with not taking him as gospel, though I think in this case it might be worth inclusion given the original citation.
2) Ah you're right, the wtf comment was related to the first edit I was referencing, not the second. Great catch, thank you. I think the addition of the family information presents an excellent picture of the family's perception of themselves, and frames how Collins interprets his own place in Irish history as he is growing up. It ties in exceptionally well with the views others had of him while in London, his brash arrogance and willingness to overreact to any perceived slight. Though, if the concern is that we are turning an encyclopedic entry into a biography in that sense, I sympathize there. Perhaps a much, much shorter version of that paragraph (one sentence or so) leading into the next paragraph would be more appropriate?
3) Fair point, it also does seem out of place now that I read it within the updated context. Agreed.
4) The word "radical" certainly doesn't fit. The British escalation of violence in response to RIC failures should be easily supported. Perhaps something like, "In the early 20th century this permanently armed police force was, in effect, the principal representation of the British state in large parts of rural Munster and Connaught. It was a principle aim of republican forces to establish independent Irish institutions following the eviction of RIC elements in local regions. This aim was countered by more direct and violent British actions in an effort to retain control over these regions." I'll track down a better citation than TPC if this works. Unless that citation directly discusses alienation, the last part should probably go given both of your concerns.
7)I'm not sure I agree, if anything it could be expanded a bit to discuss the decrease in material and financial support flowing north and Collins (and the government in general) focused on internal matters. Without this tie in, the section on Northern Ireland doesn't coherently finish, it ends with volunteers coming south.
8)I did yes, sorry about that. I'd be fine putting it back in as is with an appropriate reference, but if both of you feel (and it seems that way) that it would be better expanded/edited with some additional references, I can take that on and get back to you hopefully soon.
9) Unless Ceoil has any objections, I'll add back in a few days.
10) The source discusses those attitudes in context of his activities during wartime and negotiations, I didn't add that elaboration in my question. Given that it is describing his interactions with others and personal traits, I think it is warranted in a biographical description of the man.
Thanks for the reply,
Squatch347 (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
The best part Ceoil was that the initial post that prompted all the problems was based on a misunderstanding and error in my attempt to undo an edit made conflicting with his. Squatch347 (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
There are more ironies than that at play here Squatch347. Its *very* unfortunate that Scolaire was mistaken for the IP, and his credibility was called into question, thats on me. But am most glad to see the close eyes I was hoping for. Ceoil (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I've edited to address (4), (9) and (10). My views on the other points haven't changed. Let's see what other people have to say. Scolaire (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Good edits so far. Agreed on letting people digest a bit, I'll wait maybe a week or so and see if I can come up with language that addresses your concerns on the issues. Thanks. Squatch347 (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Agree with this approach also. For the record, the removal of dated sources, obviously closely paraphrased; the language seeped through, was a big factor behind my edits. Ceoil (talk) 10:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Death section removal of content and lack of citation

Check these series of edits by the same IP: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Collins_%28Irish_leader%29&type=revision&diff=803570227&oldid=802815825

The Death section was greatly modified without being properly cited - please restore this section back to what it previously was, and remove inflammatory 'conspiracy theory' type suggestions. If it's not cited, looks like it probably breaches rules against original research. Arfed (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with @Arfed on all counts. Additionally, the writing itself is clunky and needs to be refined. Squatch347 (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You can't just throw the line out there that Denis "Sonny" O'Neill definitely killed Collins. That's completely unproven. It could have been many different people. Heshs Umpire (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Death section

I have made some changes to this section. Firstly the last sentence reading "Writers on the subject such as J. Feehan and S.M. Sigerson have called for a full forensic examination of Collins's remains in order to attempt to settle at least some of these controversies concerning his end". While some may point out this is one of the few sourced sentences in the section, I will counter by saying its inclusion at present makes no sense. The section does not detail any "controversies" which may need settling. My second change is to move the opening paragraph to the end of the section. I believe immediately introducing conspiracy theories (which for the record are not even mentioned, leaving the reader perplexed as to what they actually are) is inappropriate, and is best done after detailing what appear to be the undisputed facts of his death. 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:A15E:5B06:D036:6F58 (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. --Red King (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed as well. Squatch347 (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Strongly agreed too Heshs Umpire (talk) 12:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Reverted photograph

The reasoning does not make sense. Did the reverted image not identify Collins? It did not obscure his face or body, and in fact it was sharper, higher in resolution, and had higher photographic quality. Most other language versions of Wikipedia use that photograph as well Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

S.M. Sigerson

What makes this person any kind of authority on the death of Michael Collins? Their book appears to be self-published thus failing WP:SPS, so I intend to remove it unless evidence of reliability can be provided. I note @Scolaire: was particularly scathing regarding this person at Talk:Michael Collins (Irish leader)/Archive 3#Killed. FDW777 (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I have removed this book. FDW777 (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Terrorist

Shouldn't the article mention the fact that he was a terrorist? (JamesFergus1 (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC))

Do you have a source? WP:UNSOURCED ~ Ablaze (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-11-11-mn-5909-story.html (JamesFergus1 (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC))
One sentence - "To some he was a freedom fighter, to others a terrorist" - from a thirty year old American newspaper cannot be used as a source to state Collins was a terrorist. Please read up on some Wikipedia policies: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:NPOV and WP:TERRORIST would be good starting points. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
There are numerous other sources: https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/COLLINS-TERRORIST-AS-HERO-3117609.php (JamesFergus1 (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC))
So after your thirty year old American newspaper is objected to you respond with a film review from a 24 year old America newspaper? Laughable. FDW777 (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Collins died a century ago. Why does it matter how old the sources are? (JamesFergus1 (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC))
Age is irrelevant. A film review is a reference for a film, not the subject of a film. FDW777 (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I see you also didn't bother with the links @Bastun: left for you. In particular I suggest you read WP:TERRORIST, especially the part about in-text attribution being required. I also suggest you read WP:LEAD, especially how the lead summarises the article so doesn't (or shouldn't, just in case this lead isn't currently 100% compliant) include things not mentioned elsewhere. FDW777 (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
The lede of Osama bin Laden's article says he was described as a terrorist, so there should be mention of this in the article on Michael Collins. He deliberately chose not to fight using conventional methods, despite the objections of de Valera. (JamesFergus1 (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC))
Contents of one article are not determined by contents of another, but by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. FDW777 (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Collins_(Irish_leader)/Archive_3&oldid=1211781494"