Talk:Roger Casement

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

message: I'm glad we finally have a picture of Roger, but would it be possible to get one without a big postmark across his face? I've got a bunch of pictures I could probably upload, but I'm unsure of the legality. When exactly does something constitute "fair use"? -R. fiend 18:01, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: R fiend have a look at Fair use, I am happy with stamps as there are lots of examples on wikipedia already but I have no idea if scanning a picture from a book or copying one from the web would be illegal, may keep an eye out for a cleaner stamp so the postmark is not hiding the image. Kglavin 19:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: R Fiend, believe it or not, I have another stamp scan of Roger, I have about 10 more sheets (10 stamps on each sheet) to go through before I get to 'clean roger' so I will overwrite the image Kglavin 19:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: I've moved this edit to this page from the article. It is correct, but is not suitable in the form it was written for the article. 
:I write this not as an addendum to the above, but as a correction. The 1916 Uprising occurred towards the end of April, 1916. It lasted less than a week. By the end of May scores of Irish republicans had been condemned to death by the victorious British authorities. By mid-May, good sense came to prevail, and the British, rather than create further martyrs for the Irish cause, rescinded the death-penalties on those surviving Irish leaders, De Valera, as an example. Many many people were sentenced to death, and were hereby reprieved. The executions ended in mid-May. But we are left with Casement. Why did the British insist on killing Casement, when they had stopped, as a matter of policy, the execution of Irish leaders? The answer truly lies in his homosexuality. Casement was tried for treason, but his true treason was not against his King, but against his sex: for this it was necessary that he be hanged. And because of his sexuality, no voice was raised in protest, though protest was much expected, particularly from the USA. It was only that quaint eccentric, GBS, who had anything to say at all. GBS -- God Bless Shaw. My name is Jamie O'Neill. I am the author of a book, set in Dublin in 1916, called "At Swim, Two Boys". I don't know everything; but I know an awful lot.
It is a fair analysis. (And At Swim, Two Boys is a good book, BTW!) FearÉIREANN(talk) 22:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying "it was only that quaint eccentric, GBS, who had anything to say at all." is not entirely accurate.  Arthur Conan Doyle organised a petition asking for clemency for Casement when he was in prison, which attracted signitures from the likes of Bertrand Russell, Beatrice Webb, Arnold Bennett, Jermome K Jerome, GK Chesterton and John Galsworthy (although Kipling, Conrad and Herbert Ward all refused to sign.) Fillthemill (talk) 09:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  (accurate but unencyclopaedic) quote moved to talk 

message: The article doesn't mention where Casement was born or what his initial connection with Ireland was. Did he suddenly adopt the Irish cause as a result of his experiences in the Empire?
--Morgandp 08:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A very good point. Born in Ireland, I'm quite sure. I'll get the specifics. -R. fiend 14:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Casement's origin

message: Wikipedia puts people in using their highest title received. As Casement was knighted, his knighthood is stated. The fact that he was stripped of it is immaterial to the opening line but should be stated later. FearÉIREANN 17:17 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
The article claimed that Casement's knighthood was the KCMG, but this is incorrect. He was appointed CMG in 1905 and in 1911 was knighted as an ordinary knight bachelor. Both these honours were cancelled after his conviction for treason in 1916. I've amended the article accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.80.120 (talk • contribs) 
As Casement was stripped of his knighthood, the title Sir must not be included. - (203.211.73.10 03:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see FearÉIREANN's response to this same sort of question nearly four years ago.  I placed it above, and grouped all discussion of his knighthood here in one place, for ease of discussion.  I think, though, that Jtdirl has stated the matter rather well. ---Charles 04:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I know of no Wikipedia guideline that says that, if there is someone feel free to correct me. Sir is still used by a large number of other places, see here. One Night In Hackney303 04:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not believe his objection is based on any Wiki-policy, more on the basis of some personally-felt insult in leaving Sir on the name of someone the Brits call a traitor.  His argument has no basis. ---Charles 04:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, especially as that bastion of British society the BBC still used Sir. One Night In Hackney303 04:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing that out.  I was not aware of that.  As that is the case, I would say that settles it.  I am of two minds on the matter, quite frankly.  On one hand, I don't give a toss what the Brits say, and think they can shove their knighthoods up the Queen's backside.  On the other hand, I believe his knighthood should be restored, with an apology for it ever having been taken away.  I see little chance of that occurring. ---Charles 15:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Please show Wikipedia guidelines that state it should be done, as we don't use the rules of the British establishment here. One Night In Hackney303 21:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The irony of that argument is that it's the "British establishment" that was responsible for Casement being granted a knighthood in the first place.  If you accept that authority to use "Sir", then you must also accept the same authority for the removal of "Sir".  Re FearÉIREANN's argument that "Wikipedia puts people in using their highest title received", I'm sure that policy was oblivious to cases such as Casement's.  Normally, a title, once granted, stays for life, unless subsumed into a higher one.  But in rare cases, a knighthood is removed.  It's almost the same as saying he was never a knight at all - but not quite; he was properly addressed as "Sir Roger" between the time of getting the knighthood and the time it was removed.  After that, it's plain Mr Casement.  An analogy that comes to mind is Australian, American and other countries' senators - they're called "Senator XXX" while they hold that office, but once they leave the job they're back to "Mr/Ms XXX".  Do we have any articles about people who at one time in their lives were senators, where we refer to them in the lead para as "Senator XXXX"?   I seriously doubt it.  See also Terry Lewis (police commissioner).  JackofOz 22:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, we go by Wikipedia guidelines not by how another article does it. What if the other article is wrong? Also I've stubbed Terry Lewis (police commissioner) per WP:BLP, far too many unsourced negative claims. One Night In Hackney303 22:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, it has been my experience that once a person has served as a Senator, they continue to be refered to as "Senator" even after leaving office.  I have seen this done countless times.  But, as One Night In Hackney has correctly pointed out, this discussion hasn't anything to do with convention or tradition in the U.S., the U.K., or elsewhere.  It has to do with Wikipedia policy, and on that point, the indication is that the "Sir" should stay. ---Charles 22:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's certainly not the case for Australian ex-Senators.  In any event, I've raised this question at MOS talk.  I invite all interested parties to have their say at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Archive 6#Revoked/rescinded Knighthoods.  JackofOz 04:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-worded the intro into what is hopefully an acceptable comprise, using Anthony Blunt article as a model, he was another "British Traitor" who was stripped of his knighthood. He was known as 'Sir Roger Casement' from 1905 to shortly before his execution, and was known as Roger Casement from birth to 1905 and again at death, and this is the name on his tombstone. Snappy56 18:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Knighthood

message: The manner in which this question is being debated here is a farce. Sullivan was some 90 years old when interviewed by McColl. He subsequently withdrew the comments he supposedly made in the interview. It is hard to prove a negative, but I can recall no evidence of Casement actually meeting Sullivan. The nearest they got to one another was when RC was in the dock and S was on the bench in the Royal Court. George Gavan Duffy took instructions from Casement. I have seen the notes, they are in the NLI.  Also, you are ignoring the lawyer who DID meet Casement, the US-American, Francis Doyle. Doyle told Casement about the diaries. He left a signed account of the meeting in the NLI. Casement was disgusted that the British should stoop to such methods, and wrote a letter to the authorities stating that they were forgeries, Doyle wrote. So please Wikipedia fans, why are you distorting the truth like this? Why concentrate on the discredited Sullivan nonsense and ignore Doyle. For a full account of McColl's fabrications, see Professor Roger McHugh's article in Threshold Magazine. 
The comments on Casement's religion are a fabrication and deeply offensive. 
The Giles Report was rejected by James Horan, the forensic expert commissioned by the Goldsmiths' Team to peer review the report. Horan's review has been published by the RIA. 
The bibliography is utterly one-sided.
It is obvious that Wikipedia is being used as a propaganda vehicle to distort perceptions. Casement is a hate figure. Neutrality is essential. If Wikipedia is interested in the truth, it should go offline until it sorts out the quality problem. As things stand, it is a disgrace to all involved in it. 
kevin.mannerings@vr-web.de, Pforzheim, Germany
 
If the "Black Diaries" are classified until 2020, how was the handwriting comparison done?  Eyeresist 03:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, did Casement have any girlfriends or fiancées that we haven't been told about?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.154.9 (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Black diaries

message: Shouldn't there be some mention of the famous line that Casement was "hanged on a comma" (sometimes "by a comma"), on account of two Court of Appeal judges reading commas into the Treason Act 1351 (see the first paragraph of this PDF). -- ALoan (Talk) 13:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There should. That's very good. When I get my books out of storage in a week or two I'll go over my Casement biography and try to expand the article a bit. I'll take a look at that link you provided as well. -R. fiend 14:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Was there any further research done on this? --Sliver7 15:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comma

message: This information, in general, is often included in Wikipedia articles merely as titillation and more often than not is based on inunnedo and rumor. The sexuality of the subject is almost never a matter of import and can almost always be considered "unencyclopedic". This section on the subject sexuality essentially says nothing except there are rumors and as far as anyone can tell the rumors cannot be confirmed. It's inclusion here and similar interjections in many,many other sketches on Wikipedia need to stricken. It is simply ridiculous at best and activist at its worst.
Outside of Casement's MI5 file and the disputed diaries at Kew, there is no evidence that Roger Casement as much as kissed any other person during his life. During his time in the  Congo he was checked out prior to employment by Baptist missionaries. A leeter was sent to London stating Casement was of good standing and morals, suitable for employment by the mission. During his time in Germany, he kept a full diary, which, in contrast to the Kew documents, contains no sex at all, although he was with his supposed boyfriend most of the time. The Germans suspected RC was a spy, so he was observed closely, but they didn't notice his obsession with nocturnal cruising either. 
It seems he had a very unusual sexual appetite. He only became aroused while under observation by MI5, or in documents which passed through their hands, even though he was not aware of the observation at the time. - kevin.mannerings@vr-web.de
Amusing but anachronistic. Casement's 1903 diary was written before MI5 came into existence.--Fynire (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but how do you know his supposed "[Black] diary" was written in 1903? Considering Dr. Audrey Giles and her team refused to do an examination of ink, paper and mere confined the 'independent' forensic examination (in 2002) to handwriting? Something to hide, Audrey? 109.255.236.104 (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexuality 

message: I've just noticed that both this article and the Seán Mac Stiofáin article claim that both of these men had Protestant parents but were secretly baptised as Catholics. The Mac Stiofáin article says: 'Mac Stíofáin (who was baptized a Roman Catholic, despite the fact that neither of his parents was Catholic)'. The Casement article says that his mother 'had him baptized secretly as a Roman Catholic, but died when he was a baby.'
These seem very suspicious claims. Now, why would anybody be "secretly" baptised Catholic especially when, in Mac Stiofáin's case, both parents were Protestant? If they felt so strongly about it, why didn't they become Catholic? Is the real link that both were British, the first British by profession the second British by birth, who betrayed their state's policies a more likely explanation for this story? The current story lends itself to the idea that "they weren't fully British though because they were really Catholic" rather than to the idea that they were British who disagreed with British actions concerning Ireland, a rational interpretation which is a much more powerful indictment of those actions.  193.1.172.166 20:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Small correction here; Irish catholics had the vote again from 1793, but could not sit in parliament until 1829. The protestant Church of Ireland was disestablished in 1869; the catholic seminary at Maynooth had been set up with British funding in 1795. So by his 'rebaptism' in 1867 the 'elite' factor was irrelevant. Any Irish Jephsons that I have heard of were protestants; what proof is there that Mrs. C. was a catholic? It does seem that many protestant 'republicans' after 1900 felt the need to be seen to change sect. For that matter, is there any proof that he ever used the Gaelic form of his name? Has he been reinvented?Stamboul 18:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you google 'Anne Jephson"+Mallow, you'll see she was from Mallow, and those Js were all definitely protestant landlords. Just the sort of girl Captain Roger might marry. The secret baptism sounds very unlikely, but there was an RC church in Rhyl (Wales) from 1863. Have any of RJC's biographers actually been to Rhyl to check out the register? What difference did it make if he then felt the need to convert again in 1916? Beyond being seen as a 'good boy' all along? He seems to have been more of a humanist than worried about any church.86.42.203.104 14:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

message: The Giles Report, and a peer review rejecting it, by James Horan, have been published by the Royal Irish Academy. There is no need to rely on "indications". - kvm
We say "a simple|forensic handwriting comparison" but the indications are that handwriting was merely the main focus per the BBC:
On 12th March 2002 the results of the first ever fully independent forensic examination of the Black Diaries were announced at a press conference in London. The examination was carried out by Dr Audrey Giles, an internationally respected figure in the field of document forensics. It was commissioned by Professor Bill McCormack of Goldsmiths College, London, and jointly funded by the BBC and RTE. The verdict was as follows:
"The unequivocal and confident conclusion which the Giles Document Laboratory has reached is that each of the five documents collectively known as the Black Diaries is exclusively the work of Roger Casement's hand, without any reason to suspect either forgery or interpolation by any other hand. The Diaries are genuine throughout and in each instance.
'This investigation, based on impartial scientific analysis, should bring to an end more than 80 years of controversy.'"
The main focus of Dr Giles' examination was handwriting analysis, which involved making direct comparisons between known examples of Casement's handwriting and the entries in the Black Diaries. As well as identifying similar characteristics, Dr Giles looked for inconsistencies that would indicate the work of a forger. Having found 'many similarities' and 'no significant differences', she reached an inescapable conclusion in favour of authenticity.
Rich Farmbrough, 09:23 27  September 2006 (GMT).
Whether or not he was a practising homosexual, a fantasist, or that the dairies were forged, Casement was hanged partially on irrelevant evidence, homosexual activity being illegal in1916, tipping the balance to a death sentence. Natalie West 14:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No; he was going to be hanged anyway, but the diaries (whether true or faked) were revealed before his trial to possible interest groups, such as Irish-Americans, fellow-diplomats, liberals and the Catholic church, and of course the newspapers, to ensure that they did not intervene or support him. In wartime, with the law as it was, and with the weight of evidence, he was going to be sentenced to death.Stamboul 19:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: I consider it to be a very important section. I would not know were to begin to edit it down, as it is all revelent. This after all, is his last statement before his execution, outlining his motivation and rational. I would welcome suggestions. --Domer48 11:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we have the original source for it? A lot of these "speeches from the dock" were tidied up later.86.42.197.156 (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: As my first post on this topic clearly shows, I have opened this discussion and ask for suggestions. Now one Ex-Admin has taken it upon themselves to try to start and edit war. While it is sad, it is also typical. Not once have they used this talk page. --Domer48 (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been transwikied to wikisource, which is exactly what wikisource is for, and exactly why we don't have entire speeches like that in WP. It'd been tagged for transwiki for months. -R. fiend (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

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

message: Casement was a Member of the Volunteers. If they took no part, why were they hung? --Domer48 (talk) 09:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He was hung for treason. He was negotiating with the enemy during a time of war. He would have been hung whether there was a rising or not (presuming he would still have been caught). He played no active role in the Rising, as he was arrested days before it began. One could argue that his negotiations with Germany were an active role, but it's a bit of a stretch. He certainly didn't fight, which is what is implied when the Rising is mentioned in the template. And nowhere is it stated that the Volunteers didn't take part. Obviously many of them did, but not all, and not Casement. -R. fiend (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: And what was he negotiating with the Germans holiday destinations, and was he on a fishing trip off the coast of Kerry come on he was an active member of the rising. Was Churchill not part of WW2 dont recall him fighting on the beaches, but using your logic it seems he wasn't part of the war BigDunc (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His negotiating in Germany was independent of the Rising. He was there more than a year before he even knew the Rising was planned. When he did find out about it, there is evidence he tried to stop it (disputed, I know, but widely ackowledged). In any case, he was arrested two days before it began, so its obvious he took no active role in the fighting. He was part of the struggle of Irish independence, but not for the military engagement of the Easter Rising, just like one would say Churchill was involved in WWII, but was not an active participant in the Normandy Invasion. Anyway, this is why these templates are dumb; they assume everything can be pigeonholed into neat little categories when often they can't. -R. fiend (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: I've added a National Library of Ireland comment that she was from Mallow. As they were a Protestant family, it is possible that she converted religion before she "secretly rebaptised him". But is it really relevant when RC himself seems to have had no strong religious views until he faced the drop?86.44.154.9 (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found a ref to a letter he wrote in 1892 to a Jephson of Mallow. Casement wrote of his mother: "She died when I was quite a child, and I only know she spoke of being related to Jephsons of Mallow, in my hearing, when a boy and since her death I never met with anyone whom I might make enquiry." That was his view as a young man.Red Hurley (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Anne Jephson from Mallow or Dublin?

message: :Copied from User talk:BigDunc.
Thank you for pointing me to the criteria for describing someone as an LGBT person. However I must now ask you which historians say Casement was not homosexual? 86.161.16.132 (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Casement's sexuality was disputed, apparently until recent inquiries were made into the Black Diaries. Nonetheless, those inquiries are not 100%. There is dispute, therefore the category does not get added. O Fenian (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I see no mention of the word "historians" on the inclusion critera, and even if there was I could provide one with ease. O Fenian (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2009 
It was Big Dunc who found the categorisation rules for LGBT people where the word historian is used.
I can't find it again. 217.43.236.187 (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish LGBT person category? 

message: There is conflicting sources for Casements retirement. What alternative sources are there?--Domer48'fenian' 16:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Irish political prisoners, 1848-1922: theatres of war By Seán McConville pg. 555 say June 1913. --Domer48'fenian' 16:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Thomas & Bellot's leading cases in constitutional law: By Ernest Chester Thomas, E. Slade pg.208 1 Aug 1913 --Domer48'fenian' 16:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Is it referenced by Ó Síocháin? The reason I ask is what about George H. Knott bio, or the two books cited above? In addition, in your own edit summary you say it granted in July or August. Which is it? If it's August, it's supported by Slade. However, being unsure yourself you in your edit went with August. --Domer48'fenian' 18:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pension 

message: The source for this doesn't exist. I presume the article mentioning "Ruairí Mac Easmainn" has been deleted or moved on the Taoiseach website. Did he use the Irish form of his name? And just out of interest, how does Roger become Ruairí? Stu ’Bout ye! 11:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's closer to Rory. I'd like to know when he was first named as Ruairí Mac Easmainn, or if he ever used it himself. Maybe he did, but I'd like to know from some expert.Red Hurley (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

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

message: Does anyone else think the section of this article on the 'Black Diaries' and Casement's sexuality should be split into a separate article? There's plenty of content there, and at the moment it's dominating this article, making it seem like it's the most important thing about Casement. That section also arguably strays from the topic of this article somewhat; given that the veracity of the diaries is disputed, extensive discussion of their history and contents doesn't really belong in a biography of Casement, but a separate article linked from this one. (That might also solve the issue of the  template - it could be placed on that article but not on this one, as a compromise solution.) Robofish (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The section takes up a large part of the article and given that the controversy over whether it is a forgery is a significant topic in itself, it's a very good idea to make it into an article in its' own right.Autarch (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree, but the LGBT thing applies to both articles if it applies to one. What evidence do we have that he was "straight"?Red Hurley (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading the article as someone who knew almost nothing about Casement, the Black Diaries section is striking because it is not at all a description of the Black Diaries, I hope there's no offence in saying that it is a poorly focussed and disjointed debate regarding their authenticity. As such it interrupts the biography and lowers the overall quality of the article. I think it should be split off, but it would be good to replace it with an account of the diaries themselves. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be a good idea to prune the existing section down to a more appropriate size, rather than fork content which does not belong in either article in the first place. For example lines like "Dudgeon's research throws new light on Casement's Irish relatives, friends and contacts, for the first time providing some biography for an alleged lover who features in the Black Diaries, one Millar Gordon" sourced only to Dudgeon's book are not appropriate for a biography of Casement or an article about the Black Diaries, it is like something from a book review. I am wary of just removing that sentence due to it spoiling the flow, but the Dudgeon information does seem a bit excessive. The whole Black/White diaries information is excessive as well. While we may all agree that the information does not belong in this article, we should be looking at whether it should be mostly deleted (by deleting I mean pruning the existing information, not deleting the whole section) from this article and not just forked somewhere else. O Fenian (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There, I've just added Dr Daniel Vangroenweghe's expert comments on Congolese dialect. Vangroenweghe adds a useful chronology of works on the diaries; the forgery theory was first set down in 1936 by a Dr. William J. Maloney who never saw the diaries. And did we know that Michael Collins was shown them in 1921 and thought that they were genuine? As regards editing, you have to mention all if you mention any.Red Hurley (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been trying to clear up the large backlog of split tags, hence I have split off the section about the Black Diaries in order to get things moving. I won't mind if the new article is renamed (I had to think of something) and I especially won't mind if someone writes a new summary. Op47 (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split the Black Diaries into a separate article? 

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

message: As I had no idea who Roger Casement was and landed here from Vargas Llosa's "The dream of the celt", I found that this section although necessary for a complete review of Casement's life as it is so complex with much controversy it should really be put in a new section.
It would also be interesting to have a cross-reference to other famous people who despite doing good work have fallen foul of either such defamation (if it is defamation) or their sexual proclivities have reduced the effectivity of their work.Gillie12 (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Here, here - let's have an end to it all. The black diaries and sexuality section seem to be dominating the whole article. A brief description would suffice - headed with see main article about all those funny goings on ... and let's decide within 4 weeks ... no objections - let's go! Francis Hannaway 15:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  start new article for the black diaries 

message: Readers of this page may be concerned to know that the separate article on the Black Diaries, recently spun off from this article, was just deleted as a result of a complaint by Kevin Mannerings (or his co-author Marcel Matley or both) that the article infringed their copyright in various articles they have written on this subject.  As I understand it, the challenge facing those of us who believe this subject should be properly addressed on Wikipedia would be to produce a substantially different article on the diaries (or section for the main Casement article) that avoids the use of material by these two authors.  Are there other users out there who would be interested in working on such a challenge?  Nandt1 (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the best course of action is to write a section about the diaries for this article first - making sure to cite material correctly and not use close paraphrasing. Then in doing that the section can be expanded into an article as it grows.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would personally have a lot of sympathy with that suggestion.  Perhaps we can find volunteers to participate? Nandt1 (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me you and me are the indicated individuals. I don't have much knowledge, but I'd be happy to work with you to assure that the text is appropriately sourced and written.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is great that you are willing to help.  Perhaps there will be others.  I am not at all knowledgable myself beyond what was in the old WP article, and I suffer at present also from not having easy access to sources other than what is online -- i.e., because of how I am fixed personally it is not easy for me just now to get to a major library.  I was in touch with an admin and she provided a link to an article by Mannerings and his co-author which provides one indicator of their material that was in the old article and that would need to be avoided:  http://home.wmin.ac.uk/marketingresearch/2179casement.htm  She stressed, though, the need for extreme caution in not inadvertently incorporating copyrighted material from this author.  You (and others) may want to read the admin's comments first-hand at her own webpages, which are: (i)  Mdennis (WMF) and (ii) Moonriddengirl. Bye for now.  Nandt1 (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For some time, various other commitments are likely to delay any input on this from me.  Do we have any other volunteers?  Nandt1 (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I might try, and avoid Herr Mannerinks at all costs. Nothing wrong with him having a view, but it's a bit thin anyway and not peer-reviewed so far as I can see.Red Hurley (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Great if you can make a start.  Basing it on solid sources, as you imply, would be key. Nandt1 (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Mannerings is entitled to his copyright but I've looked for proof of his expert status without success and what I've seen (http://home.wmin.ac.uk/marketingresearch/2179casement.htm) fails NPOV - he is an enthusiast. What a pity that he doesn't want his findings known, as he makes some good points. Most people would disagree with his view that - "Roger Casement’s Diaries must be among the most important documents of modern Irish history." Written Irish history goes back 1,500 years.Red Hurley (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  As I understand it, Mannerings's American co-author, Matley, has served as an "expert witness" on handwriting issues in various US legal cases.  One has the impression that, of the two of them., he is probably the one who brings the greater experience to bear on handwriting issues per se.  This said, if you search Matley online, you will find that he has sometimes taken some quite controversial positions over the years (and that his own professional training/expertise has itself been subject to some tough questioning).  Worth digging into.  Nandt1 (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

text: This is belated, but thank you for this public service!  Nandt1 (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: ALERT! Deletion of WP Article on the Black Diaries

message: (Kathleen Clarke was the widow of Tom Clarke (Irish republican) )
"Sir Roger Casement “made a fool of himself” in his dealings with the Germans, according to the wife of executed Easter Rising leader Tom Clarke. Kathleen Clarke described Casement as someone who really knew nothing about Ireland and who considered himself a leader of the Irish Volunteers despite being nothing of the kind." ... “He went off to Germany and started things that the revolutionary group here didn’t want,” she said. “They didn’t ask Germany for men. All they asked them for was arms. And he was trying to get men.” She described Casement as the “aristocratic kind and he assumed that when he went into any movement, ipso facto, he was one of our leaders, if not the leader . . . and what could he know of Ireland, when he was all the time out of it.” 
Link: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/roger-casement-made-a-fool-of-himself-kathleen-clarke-1.2399390 (21 October 2015). Mind you, she was wrong about most things.78.17.55.36 (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Casement was widely ridiculed because of his knighthood and because he had worked for the British government. (86.133.255.214 (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No he wasn't. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kathleen Clarke's view of Casement  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Roger Casement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141022161353/http://www.irishbrigade.eu/other-men/goey/goey.htm to http://www.irishbrigade.eu/other-men/goey/goey.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Casement was not British so I see now reason to call him that.Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Once known as Sir Roger Casement CMG (until his honours were stripped for his treasonous actions),  Casement was British his entire life, including as a diplomat, in which capacity he became known as a humanitarian, not for his actions related to the Easter 1916 Rising. If you keep making ridiculous, amateurish, ignorant, POV-pushing edits, I am going to file a complaint. Quis separabit? 13:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: He was born and raised in Ireland. follow WP:IMOSApollo The Logician (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:IMOS, Roger Casement and Tom Crean should not be described as "British". Per common sense, CS Lewis should be. I really hope the two of ye aren't going to end up blocked over edit-warring on articles of dozens of people born in Ireland pre-1922, but I'm not holding my breath... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: "British" humanitarian

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Roger Casement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228100752/http://www.nli.ie/1916/pdf/5.pdf to http://www.nli.ie/1916/pdf/5.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060502020945/http://www.1916rising.com/timeline.html to http://www.1916rising.com/timeline.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060412103105/http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/jobrien/reference/ob73.html to http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/jobrien/reference/ob73.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050211010900/http://stephen-stratford.co.uk/time_report.htm to http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/time_report.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Guilty, they're all guilty."
:©Officer Short Shrift, The Phantom Tollbooth (1961)  by Norton Juster, with illustrations by Jules Feiffer.
:"I say that Roger Casement did what he had to do." MinorProphet (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guilty... 

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