Talk:Manchester Martyrs

message: This article is definitely not representative of a Neutral Point of View.  Using the term "rescue" to describe a jailbreak and escape of prisoners (even political prisoners, even completely innocent prisoners) is just plain biased.  Derrick Chapman 14:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you looked at the dictionary definition of rescue? Parrot of Doom 14:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, here's Wikipedia's definition--"Rescue refers to operations that usually involve the saving of life, or prevention of injury."  Freeing people under legitimate arrest, isn't a rescue; it's a criminal act.  Notice the dead man.  Dictionary be damned.Derrick Chapman 16:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Added to the fact that it wasn't a jailbreak, as they weren't in jail. Malleus Fatuorum 15:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: They were in custody, being transported.  A distinction without a difference, in my opinion.  Look, I've got Irish ancestry as well as criminal ancestry.  Still, I don't harbor resentment or practice hero-worship concerning historical events that happened years before I was born.  I don't disparage the Vikings for raiding Ireland.  I was born in Georgia, but I don't adopt a pro-slavery perspective when talk of history comes up.  I'm all for people being free of oppression, but I don't glorify murderous acts toward that end.Derrick Chapman 16:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not at all interested in Wikipedia's definition of rescue; Wikipedia is by and large crap, and good articles are few and far between.  The much more reliable OED defines rescue in several ways, but the most pertinent is "5. trans. Law. To recover or take back (property) by force; to liberate (a person) from legal custody by unlawful force. Also in fig. context. In later use freq. with from."  I think if you're looking for bias, you should perhaps look closer to home. Parrot of Doom 16:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rescue 

message: This primary source is available online and could profitably be referenced somewhere in the article; not sure about the unwieldy title though:
* 
jnestorius(talk) 19:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added that as an external link. Malleus Fatuorum 20:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Command paper 

message: The term "martyrs" seems inherently non-neutral.  Is there a better term available? 2601:644:101:9616:FD97:B17D:83EF:BE46 (talk) 05:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The term Catherine the Great is inherently non-neutral as well. Both articles use the name they are known by. There is no well-known alternative name for them, so WP:COMMONNAME applies.  Scolaire (talk) 11:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that this is the common name in England, where murder of policemen is generally regarded as a crime to be frowned upon rather than a heroic act which makes one a martyr. 2601:644:101:9616:6508:1FC7:CAA7:24F6 (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a book by an English author, published in Manchester, which has no difficulty using "Manchester Martyrs", and doesn't offer any alternative name. And here is a book entitled The Manchester Martyrs, written by Paul Rose, an English politician, and published in London. If you have no argument other than an anti-Irish rant, I will not bother to engage with you further.  Scolaire (talk) 12:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: The Investigation section uses :Template:Inflation to calculate the current value of the £300 reward: "Despite a reward of £300 (£24,000 as of 2018) offered by the authorities...", but this is misleading. Template:Inflation uses the consumer price index (from the Measuring Worth website) to calculate the current value of consumer goods such as food, clothing, cars etc., but as the template page says, it is not reliable for large sums, as £300 was in 1867. We're not looking at changes in the value of commodity prices since then, but rather at changes in the value of income or wealth. Here's what Measuring Worth has to say (you need to input a value of 300 and years 1867 and 2016 and click "Calculate"):
With such a huge range of values, I don't think it's useful to just use the first one (the one based on the CPI). To a labourer earning £43 per year, £300 would have been the equivalent of seven years wages; hence the £181,500 is a lot more realistic. But it's probably better to take it out altogether.  Scolaire (talk)
:Thanks for the research!  I'd use some vague expression, and put these alternatives in a note, or at least the first two. The last two seem dubious to me - Karl Marx was bequeathed £800 around the same time, which transformed his very dodgy economic position, but not the way that about £1.5M would today (unless he still wanted to live in centralish London of course....). Johnbod (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't agree. To say "a reward of £300, which would be worth £24,000 or £180,000 today" gives no useful information whatever. All it says is that £300 was a lot of money at the time. I'm going to replace the template with a phrase saying it was a lot of money at the time.  Scolaire (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Then put the numbers in a note as I said - "a lot of money", especially unreferenced, is meaningless. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "a lot of money" is not meaningless; "either 80 times that or 600 times that, there's no way of knowing which" is meaningless.  Scolaire (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current value of £300 reward 

message: Is it appropriate to use the  template in a case where there is a very wide range of possible current values of a sum of money?  Scolaire (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is an excellent idea! Go ahead and do it, and I'll close this RfC.  Scolaire (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Eric Corbett 17:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment: use of "Inflation" template 

message: I was struggling to understand this article, I found it while studying the end of capital punishment in foreign legal systems (in this case the UK legal system). This article is literally about terrorists ambushing a police conveyance of convicted criminals, yet uses the words rescuers, and martyrs?! I literally had to read it over twice to understand what on earth the article was saying as it was so biased in it's writing I couldn't grasp how what appeared to be militant separatists who murdered an innocent man were being portrayed as 'rescuers' and not 'ambushers' and murderers. Then I remembered that Wikipedia has an ongoing pro-some-terrorist-groups bias, specifically early terrorism. It's 2020, can we clean up the act here for future students and stop being political and state the facts as they are? Terrorists are terrorists, I don't care if Wikipedia appears to like the terrorist group in question. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good points, which I myself get from looking at the article. No surprise really Irish republican articles are loaded with political bias and propaganda. Mabuska (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Another point is why does the politically biased Manchester Martyrs term get used as if it is the de facto name rather than Manchester Outrages, which has just as much right and links here? Looking at previous discussion the sources used to vindicate it appear to be of republican sympathisers so not neutral. Due to the influence of Wikipedia most sites I can see are clones of this article so are of no help. There are other sources that make use of Outrages instead, though that term is also used for other things such as 19th century trade union disputes so it wouldn't be the best disambiguation wise. As such I've altered the opening sentence to make clear that "Martyrs" is a term used by some as that is what it is. Mabuska (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What was missing was the context, a serious failing in the article! While the death of Brett was seen as an outrage in Britain, the trial and death of Allen, Larkin and O'Brien were seen as an outrage by Irish nationalists. That Brett had been killed accidentally, that five out of 30-40 attackers were singled out for prosecution, and that they were convicted on what was seen as dubious evidence all combined to turn three rank-and-file IRB men – terrorists if you like – into martyrs for the cause of Irish freedom. The purpose of the article is not to glorify fenians or fenianism, but to explain to people like 121.210.33.50 how three men who went out with seditious intent became the Manchester Martyrs, the subjects of annual commemorations and monuments throughout Ireland. I have endeavoured to do this with a few small edits, and I believe the article is still neutral.  Scolaire (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV throughout? 

message: Just an ironic twist that might get folded into the article by somebody with a broader view of the incident.  The lead magistrate at the committal hearing was Benjamin S. J. B. Joule, brother of  James Prescott Joule.  The Joule's family brewery had been sold in 1854, but was ironically housed on New Bailey Street, directly opposite the jail.  This article describes the gallows as having been constructed through the jail wall and in the direction of that street.  It seems the brewery and the hangings were essentially at the same place.  Mr. Joule later moved to a remote island village of Rothesay in Scotland, and some historians say this was due, at least in part, to fears from being assassinated by Fenians. 24.68.80.249 (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benjamin St. John Baptist Joule 

message: is really too long and might be shortened.
ash (talk) 04:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory text