Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 65.213.215.153 (talk) at 13:18, 26 October 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Entry needs editing

Someone who isn't British and is also a competent English writer needs to go over the entry several times correcting the terrible grammar. I went through two sections and boredom became my companion. Adraeus 08:28, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Page Name

Can the word "Patriot" ever be NPOV? - Khendon 15:56 Oct 1, 2002 (UTC)

I agree, its a loaded title. Maybe we could also have John Ashcroft (American Patriot), and Adolf Hitler (German Father) -Sv

Revolutionary? Politician? Leader? - Khendon 09:06 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

Michael Collins (terrorist) or Michael Collins (freedomfighter)? hmm.. Depends on POV... -'Vert

Why not simply ? JTD 01:34 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

Much better. Much much, better. "Leader" is a good word. -&#35918&#30505sv

Guerilla

"Guerilla" isn't a non-NPOV word. It's non-NPOV to assert that he was involved in guerilla activities if that isn't fact - is that the case? - Khendon 10:01 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Can we manage without triple negatives, please? :)Martin

The article didn't say he was a guerilla. It said the Fenians were. That is nonsense. Most of the Fenians' time was spent talking about revolution and fighting among themselves. They engaged in isolated and frequently farcically incompetent attempts at insurrection, and occasional and again frequently farcically incompetent attempts at violence, that did lead to loss of life, their own as much as anyone else. Calling them guerillas credits them with a degree of military capability and organisation that they never possessed. Because of that, historians do not use the word 'guerilla' when talking about the Fenians, given that its use would mislead the reader as to the nature, effectiveness and actions of the movement. The word was added in here by a user who has been adding in simplistic additions to Irish articles that have had to be removed; in some cases though their facts were right, their use of language would mislead the reader (eg, calling Parnell a protestant leader is usually taken in the Irish context to mean a leader of protestants (ie, unionists) whereas Parnell was a nationalist leader of a mainstream nationalist largely catholic movement who happened personally to be a protestant, as was already explained in the article).

The user also added in blatently inaccurate stuff on O'Connell and in other articles - though some stuff is OK so they are not a vandal, just someone who does not understand what they are doing in the way they add in stuff and how the wrong word in the wrong context can inadvertently mislead the reader. Guerilla in this context here is a classic example of this. And guerilla had already been debated on wiki some months ago as a potentially POV term to which different meanings may be attached, either negative or positive, by an individual reader. As such it was judged a term best avoided if possible. In this article it is completely wrong.

FearÉIREANN 18:11 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Restorations

I did some restoration to the text on this page in April but have noted that the changes made by 66.30.242.164 went beyond what I picked up at that time. I have now restored the notes that were deleted. Tiles 01:42 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

AAAAGH! The edit from hell. Someone made a lot of changes tonight. Many of them are excellent, many disastrous. Correct spelling changes been made, disastrous spelling changes have been made. Accuracy has been tightened in some areas, gone out the window in others. So the choice is:

1. Revert and lose a lot of very good changes 2. Leave unreverted and keep newly inserted major inaccuracies and wrong links 3. Spend hours and hours with two screens open, checking each change to see should it stay or go! And there I was about to go to bed 5 minutes ago!!! FearÉIREANN 06:40 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Weird circular link: Collins,Begin,IRA,PLO

Doing some research on the IRA for a term paper, I found an interesting (and little known) link between Michael Collins and Menachem Begin, and, oddly, the 1980s-era IRA. Goes something like this. Michael Collins was studied by Menachem Begin, who based many of his tactics off of Collins' tactios in the Anglo-Irish War. Begin's memoirs, meanwhile, were distributed to IRA commanders, and were said by one to be a "manual for guerrila warfare". Yes, that means the IRA, which cooperated extensively with the PLO, used the tactics of (at least) one of the pre-State armies of Israel. The irony is delicious, and while I dunno how to work it into the article, I hope someone would. --Penta 15:36, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Position in the Provisional Government

Was he Chairman of the Provisional Government as the link at the top of the page says or President of the Provisional Government as it says in the section The Provisional GovernmentPhilip Baird Shearer 23:25, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Michael Collins was Chairman of the Provisional Government (Cathaoirleach an Rialtais Shealadaigh na hÉireann), and after Griffiths death became President of Dáil Eireann as well.

Holding two offices was not unique, for example, Collins was appointed Minister of Finance of Dáil Eireann on 10 January 1922, and of the Provisional Government on 18 January 1922. Liam Cosgrave succeeded Collins in all three posts, until Saorstát Eireann was declared in December 1922. --garryq 16:30, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Israel and Taiwan?

" 3. Indeed, the conflicts to establish Israel (against the British) and Taiwan (in the face of the Communist revolution in China) were both called 'Operation Michael Collins'." <Added on 00:35, 20 Sep 2004 by 195.137.11.151>

References supporting these would be helpful. The second sounds particularly unlikely as the Chinese Nationalists were a ruling party established for decades, and viewed Taiwan as part of China.

Googling "operation michael collins" gives only 2 results, a mirror of this page, and unrelated Hay Hill Football Club.

Sexual orientation

Re an anonymous user's edit. The piece about allegations concerning Collins's sexual orientation are relevant (whereas the other rumours he spoke about aren't) because

• The rumours about Collins have been written about, discussed publicly and subject of a film script by a credible historian and producer;
• Collins's behaviour regarding men, especially his endless physical contact of the men around them (some of whom were somewhat unnerved by his actions, led to real rumours during his life and afterwards;
• the other rumours (concerning the pope and others) have no credible source, no credible evidence and are simply the product of unevidenced gossip.

On balance my conclusion is that the bisexual claims against Collins are unconvincing. Nevertheless they are real claims and so have to be explored in a factual, accurate manner, especially as they formed the central focus of the division between the rival proposed films. You can't not mention that Neil Jordan's version was subject to severe criticism by Eoghan Harris, a major Irish media columnist and historian. And that means saying what Harris's alternative version was proposing to suggest. And that means you have to explain the rumours, the claims, the background and evidence or lack thereof. It is elementary historical writing. FearÉIREANN 22:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not the anonymous user, but also think this paragraph should be deleted. To respond to the defence of it:-

> The rumours about Collins have been written about, discussed publicly and subject of a film script by a credible historian and producer;

>Nevertheless they are real claims and so have to be explored in a factual, accurate manner, especially as they formed the central focus of the division between the rival proposed films. You can't not mention that Neil Jordan's version was subject to severe criticism by Eoghan Harris, a major Irish media columnist and historian.

Eoghan Harris is a credible historian ? What historical volumes has he had published ? What academic positions has he held in the discipline of history ? What historical papers has he had published in peer-reviewed journals ?

As regards him being a major Irish media columnist, I would dispute how significant he is (I certainly never read him), and would suggest in any event being a major media columnist is of no significance in this regard. Rio Ferdinand the football player is technically a major media columnist in that he has a column in the UK's best selling daily newspaper, but I doubt he has any useful input to offer here.

In any event,there's another page for discussion of the film,and any putative rivals to it. The film is nothing inherently to do with Michael Collins.

>And that means you have to explain the rumours, the claims, the background and evidence or lack thereof. It is elementary historical writing.

Basic historical writing involves reviewing source documentation, assessing evidence, reading other historical treatments of the subject matter,interviewing any available witnesses, publishing bibliographies, foot noting your sources. Has Harris does any of this on this topic ? Can you refer me to any document he's published of any scholarly,academic or historiographic worth on the topic of Collin's sexuality ?

And as a last point Michael Collin's sexuality is not a matter of any historical import, and does not become so even if the suggestion of bisexuality is true. Bisexuality or homosexuality is no more worthy of discussion in a scholarly biography than heterosexuality, unless it has some actual influence on the course of the subject's life. Obviously any discussion of Oscar Wilde must mention his sexuality, because of the catastrophic consequences of that sexuality. No such circumstances exist in this case. Does one mention in Winston Churchill's biography that he was so far as is known entirely heterosexual ? Of course not.

Colloquially and simply, who cares if Collins was bisexual ? It had no discernible consequences on his life, and discussing it is, I suggest, largely prurient gossip.