Talk:Peter Hart (historian): Difference between revisions

Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This guy is a fraud. His bias against the Irish is easily seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.138.192 (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that anyone who voices a revisionist view of the Irish War off Independence is personally attacked for being racist and biased? It seems that if you peddle any old story about the conflict that as long as it is pro-Republican it must be true. Plenty of Irish men and women did not support Sinn Fein or the IRA. In the 1918 General Election 476,087 people voted for Sinn Fein whilst 220,837 voted for the Irish Parliamentary Party,8,183 for other Nationalist parties whilst 297,149 voted Unionist. That means that over 526,169 (including minority parties) voted against Sinn Fein's vision of Ireland's future. In effect it was only Britain's pechant for First Past the Post elections rather than PR that allowed SF to win the majority of seats. Those are the facts. Not everyone supported SF or the IRA. Hart has the cheek to point this inconvenient fact out. The controversy surrounding the Kilmichael Ambush will probably never be fully resolved. It is likely that Barry did deliberately have all the Auxiliaries killed, after all that is the point of an ambush - anyone with the most rudimenatary military training could tell you that. War is a messy business and counter-insurgency more so. The Republicans saw the Castle regime and its supporters as an occupying power and the Unionists saw the Republicans as rebels and traitors. Victory, and vctory alone has vindicated the SF/IRA image as liberators of an oppressed nation. That is why every effort is made to whitewash IRA atrocities during the war and an equal effort degree of effort is made to amplify all British atrocities. As an Irishman I think its time we looked objectively at our own history and stopped treating it as some sort of emotional experience. It is only by recognising the good and bad on both sides that we will be able to come to terms with our past. Just because Hart hioghlighst some of the less flattering aspects of the Nationalist psyche does not mean that he is wrong. For a long time Protestants were not made welcome in the Republic and even if some of those killed in West Cork in 1922 had been British spies the key word is had been not still were. The fact is they were killed by elements of the IRA and the only concievable reason was because they did not fit in with the vision of a Catholic gaelic Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwasanaethau (talk • contribs) 09:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's use your own numbers to display some actual facts, rather than revisionist opinions such as yours: 705,071 voted nationalist as opposed to far less than half that many (297,149) supporting the unionist position. Any place in the world, that would be called a "landslide" rejection of the union.

Hart may or may not be an anti-Irish bigot; the evidence certainly leans in support of that conclusion.

But what is no longer disputable, based on the evidence presented, is that he is a poor historian. He either falsified his "interviews" with veterans of Kilmichael or he was taken in by tellers of tall tales; neither conclusion reflects well on his competence nor his integrity.

Likewise his choice of pejorative terms such as "ethnic cleansing" for what is by any reasonable standard an isolated instance of vengeance---based on the victims' previous conduct, not their faith---and one that was widely condemned by the Irish government, military and the Catholic church at the time.

There's little doubt that his choice of such terms--terms which he has subsequently lied (yes, _lied_, unless there's a "nicer" word for consciously telling an untruth and being caught at it?) about having used, displays bias on Hart's part.

Hart has consistently published claims that are not supported by the facts. That is the issue here; not your queasiness at the what occurs in ambushes or your eagerness to be "progressive" and embrace revisionist claims about Irish history that are not supported by a shred of evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.241.182.161 (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The atrocities that are there are few and far between regarding the IRA. They committed a few especially up north but they are countable on the fingers of one hand. There appears to be no undue minimising of IRAs actions. Rather, there seems to be a maximising of all bad things now. Especially when people like yourself seem to think that in celebrating their victory that we may have become blind to their bad actions. Having studies wars, sieges and conflicts in general I can safely say that the IRA killed an absolutely tiny proportion of non-combatants than some of the more conventional wars. But you must admit that his claims at times go very much against logic and reason. For one thing there could be no way that he had that interview with the veterans given that one was impaired and all other veterans were dead, and his claims of ethnic cleansing when the IRA killed so few non combatants are ridiculous. One bad incident such as the Dunmanway massacre (which was condemned unilaterally by the IRA the Roman Catholic Church and the Irish people) is no justification for giving a verdict of ethnic cleansing or thatit was for a vision of a Catholic Gaelic Ireland. After all, Protestants were treated fairly after the War as opposed to Catholics up North. Frankly, his methods of research his wild conclusions and his incredible assumptions lead many people, including myself to think that he is an unreliable source at best. Take my Irish Protestant word for it.86.43.71.254 (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In particular Hart in a chapter entitled 'Taking it out on the Protestants' pointed to the killing of 13 Protestants in Dunmanway ..." Hart deals with 13 so that should be the number used here. The Meda Ryan list ( and the item with names)is nowhere to be seen so that has to be mentioned if it is quoted so extensively. 81.129.245.63 (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is entirely unbalanced. It is not about Peter Hart and his work but about criticisms of his work which properly belong to other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.245.63 (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domer - stop the vandalising and only remove parts you think are inappropriate, providing reasons in Talk. I am not an IP hopper as stated before. BT changes the number invisibly.81.129.245.63 (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the majority of your edits to be inappropriate. Please provide an in-depth rationale for any change you would like to make prior to making it, then should there be any which have any merit they can be discussed. O Fenian (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is nonsense O Fenian. The vast majority of my edits survive despite your initial reversions. And references get provided.

You provide the "in-depth rationale" for reversion as you are the fault finder. Many of my changes are minor, uncontentious improvements but you can't even have them - being a patroller not an orginator.81.153.148.246 (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, you have no intention of discussing your proposed edits? O Fenian (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are not a Wiki-god. If you dispute something check out the ground yourself O fenian instead of reverting even spelling corrections in your rage.217.43.236.187 (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Peter Hart. The quoted Irish Times letter, some 30% of the article, is another's person's extended view on one controversy in one Hart book. It is absurdly and inappropriately long, not to mention infringing tht paper's copyright. Big chunks needed to go. --86.147.52.238 (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information is notable, subject specific and relevant. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph for example has next to nothing to do with Peter Hart (who hardly covers Cork city in his book and all to do with a vendetta agaisnt his scholarship): "Among Cork's executed "spies", clear evidence linked some of them to the crown forces, while others were shot without any explanation. Today it is impossible to establish guilt in many cases. British records about informants are fragmented, incomplete, and often unreliable. IRA records were destroyed during the conflict for security reasons. However, surviving documentation indicates the Cork city IRA only targeted civilians it believed were passing information to the crown forces."86.150.37.92 (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per above.--Domer48_'fenian' 20:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not discussion Domer; that's assertion. I take it you won't engage on even the tiniest detail. 217.43.234.190 (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Assertion." Please read your post again. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You insist, Domer, that I discuss in Talk before removal of certain paragraphs from the Borgonovo letter in the Irish Times and then you decline to engage in the discussion. My one or opening point using a single paragraph was designed to provide an example of largely irrelevant material in the letter (as I previously stated). It was met with a restatement of your view, not discussion of the point made which was not, simply, an assertion. That's discussion. Please explain why the example paragraph, indeed the whole letter, is relevant to a discussion of Peter Hart's article? The point about copyright was made as, in my naivete, I had quoted a paragraph or so of original text in other articles and was told by you and or Domer or O Fenian that this violated Wikipedia's copyright rule. It seems a couple of lines is the outer limit, otherwise a distillation. I learnt my lesson so I ask again is the full quotation of a long letter in a newspaper from another author copyright violation? Also Hart's books are full of statistics and analyses derived from facts and such figures. Plainly they have sparked controversy and a few of his facts are disputed - many hundreds not - yet this article has lost sight of his substantive conclusions (or further questions) not least on the nature of the IRA war in the south e.g. whether an action was sectarian or had sectarian consequences despite the attackers saying otherwise. His views need to go into this article if for no reason other than balance but also for a greater reason - they are interesting, at times innovative, and humane. If spared blocking, I intend gradually to introduce them to give a rounded picture of this author and his extensive and prized scholarship. 81.158.160.101 (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the majority of your edits to be inappropriate. Please provide an in-depth rationale for any change you would like to make prior to making it, then should there be any which have any merit they can be discussed.--Domer48_'fenian' 07:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well he made similar points as I did, and you didn't discuss them with me! One of the issues with the letter is copyright. And even if it's OK copyright-wise, such lengthy quotation is unjustified in almost any article (possible exception would be articles on literary works, quoting those works). The points made in the letter should at least be briefly summarised. However the use of a letter as a source is highly debatable. Consider asking about it at WP:RSN. Rd232 ^talk 09:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domer, I have made dozens of additions and a few changes in Wikipedia that have survived your and other's scrutiny but on this small number of Irish articles that you and your two colleagues guard, I am expected to bow to your absurd conditons. I don't think you can arrogate to yourself such a demanding requirement ("in-depth rationale for any change"). If administrators grant you an effective veto and immunity, as I fear may be happening, then it is the Wikipedia system, which I admire and defend, that is failing. It is this sense that a group of rule-quoting, pedantic bullies of a certain Irish political view can drive others out which has been a restraint to my full involvement for so long.81.158.160.101 (talk) 08:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By all means add more appropriately-sourced details on Hart's work. Remember that this should be based primarily on secondary sources (see WP:PSTS). Rd232 ^talk 09:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one Rd232, I'll note your responce to rants directed at me by disruptive editors! Well lack of one. As to me not discussing the points you raised, please read the discussion below. Now Rd232 I suggest below what you should do, but your not intrested in editing the section yourself. So instead of telling us what should be done, do it yourself. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's starting to seem to me that there is more to this. You are clearly refusing to engage in substantive debate; you have not replied to any of my responses below, and you have the barefaced cheek to tell me to "please read the discussion below"! As to calling him a "disruptive editor", that is not a judgement you can make, it is a judgement the community makes via mechanisms such as WP:ANI, and it leads to sanction, not to individual editors refusing to engage in debate. Furthermore, it is pushing it to call any of the above a "rant"; it is a strong and frustrated expression of opinion, which was why my remark pointedly ignored that with a constructive suggestion to encourage building the encyclopedia, rather than feeding Wikidrama, a point you would do well to think on. Finally, I take your point that I could just edit instead of commenting on what needs doing, but as previously stated I have no wish to get engaged in this topic, particularly when I am trying to act as mediator. (PS your remark "I suggest below what you should do" mystifies me - I see no suggestions from you. Perhaps you mean the offer of help, which seems contingent on my doing something.) Rd232 ^talk 19:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, anonymous editor, would you please either WP:Signup for an account, or explain why you refuse to do so, despite the fact that it certainly harms both your credibility in interactions with other editors, the ease of communication with you, and indirectly your ability to learn the ins and outs of applying Wikipedia policy, which are many and complex. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 19:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rd232 - I was working up to registering but was diverted by the ceaseless reversion of others using Wikipedia rules almost at random such that I felt I did not want to give the necessary commitment. Then I was blocked after false accusations of deliberate IP hopping had convinced a naive administrator which reduced my confidence in the structure. I will register shortly when these disputes calm and subside. Nonetheless I have learned a fair amount from the events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.37.56 (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well accusations of IP hopping will certainly be resolved by signing up, and it only takes seconds. Remember that there is no deadline - if you're patient and willing to use dispute resolution you should be able to get most problems resolved sooner or later - but this is difficult to do from a dynamic IP, because it makes conversations difficult/confusing. Remember too to be openminded about the possibility of being wrong yourself - it happens to the best of us. Rd232 ^talk 23:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you guys familiar with the term WP:Coatrack? This article is a mess. It's an attempt to settle factual debates which Hart has written about, not a bio of Hart. Rather than try and explain in detail or get involved, I'm just going to post at WP:BLPN. Rd232 ^talk 09:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:NOTABILITY. What makes this author notable? Controversy! Interviewing dead people is a rare talent among historians. So the author uses controversy to generate publicity, and you suggest we should not mention it in the article? Take away the controversy and what are you left with? You suggest that “It's an attempt to settle factual debates which Hart has written about...” which is not true at all. This information does not attempt to settle anything, it simply presents the information. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of hyperbole helps no-one: "you suggest we should not mention it in the article?" - I did no such thing. However the "Controversy" is quite obviously an attempt to argue about particular highly specific and disputed historical events, in an amount of detail which may be appropriate in articles on those topics but not here. Also, WP:Notability starts with "Within Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article.". The most relevant policy in this context is WP:NPOV and WP:BLP#Criticism and praise. Rd232 ^talk 15:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to you this is "obviously an attempt to argue about particular highly specific and disputed historical events." According to you "it's an attempt to settle factual debates." This sort of hyperbole helps no-one. This information presents the views and opinions of authors involved in the controversy. The most relevant policy in this context is WP:NPOV. Apart from the controversy Hart creates, what makes them notable? --Domer48_'fenian' 15:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, please listen to what I say. Notability is relevant for whether Peter Hart merits an article. It has nothing to say about the content of that article, which should be a balanced biography, not a critique of (a very small part of?) his work. The first two sections are not too bad, but the third needs radical revision. And it all could with better sourcing and trimming, and placing in a broader context of Hart's work. Rd232 ^talk 16:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Is it your view that while we should mention that his work is controversial, we should not address any of the issues involved in the controversy? Now the controversy does not involve only a very small part of his work. It involves all of his work on the Irish Revolution, I've read them and the reviews. His latest work on Michael Collins is no different, however that has not been mentioned at all yet. I have no problem at all with trimming, and placing in a "broader context" and I'm very insistent on referencing. I hope that comes accross as being a bit more productive and constructive.--Domer48_'fenian' 18:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you want to address these issues, you can start by (a) trimming each issue to one paragraph and (b) restructuring the article so that it's structured around his major works, not around the controversies (eg, book by book, not problem by problem). Also, more sources on these things being "controversial" would be good (media coverage, academic debate), rather than just "he said something" + "others criticised him". Rd232 ^talk 19:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rd232 the issue I had was with referenced information being removed. I've added some external links if you want to review the controversies. If I can be of any help on the trimming, placing in a "broader context" and finding or providing quotes from books I'm more than willing to help. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I really don't want to get involved with the detail. I've given the general comments which would apply to any bio in this situation, and posted at WP:BLPN, and I'll leave it at that, citing WP:Deadline. I'll note again that it should be possible to (a) handle these issues with greater brevity and equal clarity, and with a better structure, around the books in which these issues occur (b) transfer some details to the relevant topic articles, rather than this bio. And I'll reiterate that a letter to a newspaper, even by an academic, is not a good source, and should not be reproduced in detail even if it's cited. PS One of the links you added, [1], would be a good start for summarising The Controversy qua public controversy, as opposed to qua academic debate. Somebody should put some of that in the article. Rd232 ^talk 21:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a re-write of the article, and expand on the Controversy section over the coming days. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tackled the "controversy" section (now renamed) per the request at the noticeboard. A few comments and explanations:

• Per WP:BLP, this is a biography of a living person. We describe who the person is, why they are notable and what they have done. In the case of academics, we should not be rehashing or explaining the details of academic disagreements in primary sources. That is part and parcel of any academic's work and isn't particularly notable unless it gets wider coverage in secondary sources.
• In the case of his writings about IRA commander Tom Barry, the criticism of his work was sufficiently notable that it was covered by the BBC and THE. Since these are classified as secondary source coverage, this is certainly appropriate (though we need to make sure we don't overdo it per WP:UNDUE... undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
• I have also added some third party descriptions of his work and this responses to criticism.
• I removed the section about "ethnic cleansing" because it was utterly perplexing and contradictory, it lacked secondary sources and it attributed language to Hart in paraphrase. If there really is some notable dispute of this, we need to be very careful. The disagreement appears to be about language, semantic arguments needs to be sourced and written in a manner the reflects the sources explicitly.
• Finally, I removed a wall-of-text reproduction of a letter written to the Irish times criticizing Hart. Not only was it given ridiculously undue weight, it was of extremely questionable notability and - most importantly - it was a copyright violation.

As always, I'm happy to discuss in good faith. Rockpocket 21:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly, there is a good reason why I removed these external links during the BLP rewrite, clearly I have to explain these. Firstly, as I mentioned above. This is a biography of a living person. We describe who the person is, why they are notable and what they have done. In the case of academics, we should not be rehashing or explaining the details of academic disagreements in primary sources. That is part and parcel of any academic's work and isn't particularly notable unless it gets wider coverage in secondary sources.

• With that in mind, this is a primary piece by one of his academic competitors, written in non-notable, non-neutral source. It is also only nominally about Hart, the article is promoting the author's own work by critically contrasting it with the subject of their article {"I have analysed the 'report' in detail in my book, Tom Barry: IRA freedom fighter and can find no evidence that Barry would have written it in the manner presented.."). It is not appropriate per WP:EL or WP:BLP.
• Likewise this external link is another non-neutral source which quotes in entirety Meda Ryan's critique of Hart's work. Again, it is a primary source, and its not appropriate to link to one academic criticism of another.
• Likewise this external link is another non-neutral source which promotes the work of Hart's critics. I have no idea on what planet this would be considered an appropriate EL for Hart.
• Indymedia is not a reliable secondary source. Moreover the author is (surprise!) Niall Meehan, who is another of the cadre of Hart's critics. The article essentially attacks an interview Hart gave. Its primary. Not neutral. Not appropriate.
• This is a letter to the editor from "SEAN O CEILLEACHAIR, CORK" Why is his armchair criticism of Hart of interest to anyone?

So, taken together, I would also suggest they violate Wikipedia:EL#In_biographies_of_living_people and Wikipedia:EL#Avoid_undue_weight_on_particular_points_of_view. Rockpocket 19:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please! The sources are "Not neutral." So if a source is not supportive of Hart its deemed by you to be another of the cadre of Hart's critics. Please try come up with a better rational because I will be using them as sources. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read the section above, WP:BLP is a serious issue and if this is turned into an attack page again, based on the opinion of a trio of critics, I'll not hesitate to move for a topic ban. The article already has due coverage of the criticism over his book. This may be a huge issue for the three people who seem to spend most of their time attacking Hart, but it should not overwhelm his biography.

External links have a specific purpose, which is clearly defined in WP:EL. It is not the place to dump any link with a mention of the subject and it is not a place to compile a case to discredit Hart (in lieu of being able to do so in the article itself). What exactly is your purpose in adding these links - to tell us more about Hart, or to tell us more about the supposed errors he has made (according to his academic competitors)? I ask because you added a link to a critique of Hart's answers in an interview, yet you don't add the interview itself. That shows a serious lack of balance. Rockpocket 21:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Making treats now? Move for a topic ban? I make it a point to read all the policies that editors and admin’s direct my attention to, so trust me, I always edit according to policy. Now you saying "according to his academic competitors" "the opinion of a trio of critics" and go on about them being a cadre of Hart's critics is in my mind quite telling. So I could suggest a couple of policies you should read, but I'll simply say that censorship is not the same as WP:NPOV, when these materials are relevant to the content. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content. In this case you find them objectionable. Now tell me this, were in the article does it outline the issues these respected authors and academics have with Hart's work? What are the main issues they have? I'm well aware that WP:BLP is a serious issue, and so is using it as an excuse to make treats. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being serious? You really can't see where the criticism of Hart's work is covered in the article? I'm going to assume you are being facetious (and if you are not, you can address the issue in the section above, I'm talking about the ELs here).

All I can say is that if you really have read WP:EL and WP:BLP, and still think that those ELs are appropriate, then you should not be editing any biography of a living person. I'm sorry to say that - and I don't mean to be rude - but your understanding of them is so out of whack. I mean, you really think it is perfectly acceptable to use a letter to the editor from some punter as criticism of an academic?

If you think that bizarre interpretation of our policies is kosher then go ahead: but I'll repeat my intention: I cleaned the article up to make it BLP compliant and if it goes back to an attack page, then there is two options: either protect it or topic ban the editors who don't understand BLP. I'll pursue the latter. Rockpocket 02:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to assume anything, and will simply point you to my above post. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are Murphy and Ryan historians any more than Meehan? He surely is not: "Mr Meehan is head of the journalism and media faculty at Griffith College Dublin, a private further and higher education institution, and he is writing a critique of Dr Hart's book as part of his own PhD thesis." In what respect is a pamphlet published by a local history society a reliable source for criticisms in a BLP? And at least one claim which is presented as if it were sourced to the THES is not. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently Dr Brian P. Murphy OSB is a historian, the BBC says so. Still, "[t]he B&ICO/AHS's interpretation of Irish history has been criticised by some Irish academics" and "B&ICO was never officially disbanded, but came to work solely through Athol Books, the Aubane Historical Society". Alas, that doesn't makes me feel better about using Troubled History as a source here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Angus. I too have some concern about the notability of some of the critics of Hart. Much of their criticism appears to come in the form of pamphlets or articles published by some dubious societies (such as The Aubane Historical Society). Meda Ryan appears to be published by a reputable publisher, and some of the other criticism has been picked up by the BBC or TES, which I think makes it notable. I tried to write the section as fairly as possible, do you think there is something in particular that is inappropriate? Rockpocket 00:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When the THES is being used as a source we would ideally distinguish between John Gill's own words and John Gill quoting the claims in the AHS pamphlet. This is not really the case at present. Ryan is best described as a biographer I think (or perhaps "biographer of Tom Barry"). The pamphleteers shouldn't be called historians either as this was a pamphlet, not a work of history. One could also be forgiven for imagining, on the current basis of the article, that every review of Hart's work ever published concentrated Tom Barry's doings. Regan's review, for which we quote the rebuttal, most certainly did not. Still probably an issue of undue weight then. And that AHS stuff must go. Political pamphlets are never going to be the stuff of a BLP. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the pressure plied in the section above, perhaps my attempts at BLP compliance were less rigorous than I first thought. I would work on it further, but given the resistance to my similar efforts as Dunmanway killings, I feel any editing to this article would be considered provocative. Feel free to rework yourself, but beware that anything but outright dismissal of Hart is seen as tantamount to treason by some around here. Rockpocket 06:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed it per BLP and WP:COATRACK. --John (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so, but Hart is not a revisionist. Better if he were given the criticisms Regan raises. Thanks to you and John. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hart is a revisionist and that can be cited to Regan. Aubane Historical Society is also a publishing company and is not being cited in any of the references. The authors are being cited not the publishing company. Now I'll be using a number of sources on this article, and if they happen to be published by Aubane, that will not make any difference at all per WP:RS or WP:V. Not allowing criticism of Harts work is tantamount to a white wash. To say “A number of the claims Hart has made in his books have attracted criticism from other historians” and not be able to say what those criticisms are, is nonsensical. I’ll be adding what those criticisms are and Harts response to them. The reader can draw their own conclusions. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having read through the edits and the text that was removed, I'll be addressing it over the coming days. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine Domer but I think we have a consensus version at the moment. Feel free to try for a new consensus but it would need to be a strong one as there are BLP concerns here. --John (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need consensus to add referenced text! I'll not be looking for consensus to edit this article, if you have a problem with the text I add, you can offer a policy based rational on the talk page. I'm well aware of BLP and I always edit according to policy. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So long as you do, everything will be fine. But failure to edit in line with BLP will not only mean that you get reverted. You'll be banned from editing this article into the bargain. My advice to you is to read BLP very carefully, especially the sections Reliable sources and Criticism and praise. If in doubt, ask for opinions, either here or at WP:RSN or WP:BLPN as appropriate. I hope this is clear. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comments above. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, coming in as an uninvolved admin. I am not familiar with the subject of the Peter Hart article, and have no opinion either way on how it is written. But what Domer48 is saying up above about Aubane Historical Society is not correct. There have actually been two recent threads at WP:RSN (1, 2) where the clear consensus of uninvolved editors was that AHS is not a reliable source. It is therefore not to be used to source anything which might be deemed controversial. See also Talk:Irish Bulletin#Consensus of uninvolved editors at WP:RSN. --Elonka 23:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the above named section we have a number of things which are a cause of concern. I'll point to some sentences to illustrate my point.

• "Hart's work offers a revisionist version of events that proved highly controversial."
• "A number of the claims Hart has made in his books have attracted criticism from other historians."
• "Hart stands by his work, stating that critics have failed to 'engage with the book's larger arguments about the nature of the IRA and the Irish Revolution' [2] and believing they are closed to a real debate where people concede some things and put forward others or are skeptical about weak points and accept the strong points."

First off his work is considered "highly controversial." Why and by who? On point two, what claims has Hart made, and what criticism has it attracted criticism from other historians? Who are these historians? On the final point, how can we have Hart's reaction to criticism, without knowing what the criticism was and who made it? I've added back some of the text which went some way to addressing these reasonable questions above, but would like comments on how we can address these questions in more detail? Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 22:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Domer. I am concerned about possible bias by an Admin here. It seems we must accept this "historian" is notable but may not explain why he is notable. Sarah777 (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]