Talk:Peter Hart (historian)

message: 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)
thread_title: Bias

message: 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)
thread_title: Wild conclusions

message: "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)
thread_title: Killing of 13 Protestants

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: The information is notable, subject specific and relevant. --Domer48'fenian' 07:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

text: "Assertion." Please read your post again. --Domer48'fenian' 10:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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, , 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)
thread_title: Article is entirely unbalanced

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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, , 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)
thread_title: Coatrack

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I have read the discussion. May I say the arguments against the AHS are daft; in that they assume "commercial" publishers are somehow more reliable! Fox News anyone? Pravda? The only thing the MSM commercial organs of billionaire media barons check for is libel. Historical (or any other) accuracy does not come into it. This is so obvious that WP:AGF in relation to folk who claim otherwise is......very difficult. Sarah777 (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are welcome to your opinion; however, this does not change the consensus. Also, it was extremely disruptive for Domer48 to try to state here on this article talkpage that AHS was an acceptable source, considering he was keenly aware of the discussions from WP:RSN and Talk:Irish Bulletin which said otherwise. --Elonka 00:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Elonka you will seriously have to have a read of WP:NPA, as your comments are extremely disruptive and very dishonest. Please show editors were this supposed consensus is or remove your personal attack. This discussion here was closed by the sock abusing IP who opened it, and this discussion here is still ongoing. As to the Irish Bulletin talk page, that was a consensus you reached with yourself or provide a diff to support your claims? --Domer48'fenian' 14:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious claims and unreliable sources 

message: Not sure about this change .
Is Socialist Democracy a reliable source of review and criticism here?
Jdorney (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BLPN would be the appropriate place to pose this question. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 21:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Then WP:RSN I suppose. I think my view of the propaganda presses of minor sectarian groups (whether that's political, religious, nationalist or any other sort of sectaries) is on record: good only for statements about themselves, and even then probably all lies since such groups are forever retconning things. What's more, policy agrees with me. Isn't that nice? Angus McLellan  (Talk) 22:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Always nice. So...what do we do here? Jdorney (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was bold. We'll see what happens. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 22:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Bold is good in this case. RSN would just chew it up and spit it out anyway. RashersTierney (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV change? 

message: Just wondering if this article should 'Peter Hart (Irish historian)' (or something, I know he was actually Canadian), as there is another prominent historian named Peter Hart see here.
Jdorney (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambig

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Peter Hart (historian). 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 https://web.archive.org/20131109182638/http://www.drb.ie/essays/the-history-of-the-last-atrocity to http://www.drb.ie/essays/the-history-of-the-last-atrocity
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131111101202/http://www.drb.ie/reviews/west-cork-and-the-writing-of-history to http://www.drb.ie/reviews/west-cork-and-the-writing-of-history
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 08:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Peter Hart (historian). 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/20110721130634/http://www.southernstar.ie/article.php?id=846 to http://www.southernstar.ie/article.php?id=846
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) 08:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified