Talk:Kevin Barry

message: No source is cited here for the lyrics, but it appears to be the version I've known it for (scary thought) something now approaching half a century. But isn't it missing the chorus? At least that's how I've always known it:
:Shoot me like an Irish soldier,
:Do not hang me like a dog;
:For I fought for Ireland's freedom
:On that dark September morn,
:All around that little bakery,
:Where we fought them hand to hand.
:Shoot me like an Irish soldier
:For I fought to free Ireland.
- Jmabel | Talk 08:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lacking response, I'll add it. - Jmabel | Talk 05:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The song was in Angela’s Ashes, wasn't it? Maybe worth mentioning, but possibly a bit too trivial. Stu ’Bout ye! 14:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Song

message: It is accepted by all modern sources that Washington was fifteen. All sources that have been updated state he was fifteen.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.157.241 (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a number of references which have the soldiers ages ranging from 19-23. I also have one for 15. There is a lot more to be said in relation to this, so I'm not sure how to proceed? I have put some information onto this section, and removed the age for the time being until others have had a chance to discuss this. The importance of Basil Clarke should not be under estimated. I would quote the following paragraph: In the Irish Times (29 January 1992)there was an apology  by Kevin Myers "for stating that Terence MacSwiney had planned to kill the Bishop of Cork. When Myers became aware that this allegation had been fabricated by Clarke, he apologised for not detecting “the insidious concoctions of the black propagandist…" Clearly the work of Basil Clarke in the years 1920-192 1 had the capacity not only to influence the events of that time but also to shape the historical narrative in our time." Clearly it is not a cut and dry issue, and I would welcome some feedback. --Domer48 20:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The fact remains no matter what age the british soldier was is that he joined the army and took up arms and went to another country as an occupying force and was killed on active service. It remained hidden because the British army have a history of ignoring the victims of the conflicts they are involved in just look at the Falklands veterans. --193.1.36.14 11:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I have referenced all sections now. It is my intension to go through it all again using the only full-length biography of Kevin Barry written by Donal O'Donovan titled Kevin Barry and his Time. This will also mean adding additional information. All the newspapers used are available from both the National Libary of Ireland, and the Gilbert Libary Pearse Street, Dublin. --Domer48 12:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: are you going to leave in the fact that one of the soldiers was fifteen. A professor of history from oxford says its true. If not you are just cowards which of course make you true republicans. From Dunmanway to Kingsmill the truth will out. The harder you try to bury the truth the more certain it will out.--unsigned comment by 89.100.135.1
I would say that if its true would say more about the civilised society that Britian was at that time that they put a 15 child in uniform in a war zone.  Also in war it is not customary to ask the ages of your  opponents in a gun battle, if he was in uniform and armed then he was a legitimate target.--Padraig 21:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you finished your rant now  89.100.135.172 please remember not to attack other editors like this they only show the rest of the editors on this that you are incapable of WP:NPOV. BigDunc 21:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: 89.100.135.172 you have been warned already about personal attacks you will not be warned again! I have outlined the issue, and have asked for opinions on it. I do not want to see personal attacks again!--Domer48 08:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the British or the Irish which would you prefer 89.100.135.172. Loads of refs regarding the British using child soldiers in Army and also the use of children in the Fine British navy. BigDunc (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Referencing

message: The execution of Kevin Barry was covered by a number of foreign papers, which all called for clemency. The effect was also amplified in America. This is important information and should be included. Not informing while under torture shows at the very least that he displayed courage. Taking this into consideration I have included some of this information, and incorporated the recent changes. --Domer48 (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: R. fiend talk please read the discussion before you rush in to remove what you consider to be POV. Now if you want me to place the word courage in comma's just say so. Edit summaries like this are not acceptable, and will not be encouraged, please assume good faith and use the discussion page. --Domer48 (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: First off, lose the attitude, is dose not wash with editors anymore! I strongly suggest you read up on talk page guidlines, and assume good faith. This article is now referenced, and as such are both Verifiable and reliably sourced . If you wish to challange this information, please provide alternative sources. --Domer48 (talk) 09:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I have. As has Fiend. They have not been addressed Domer. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: One more thing, I don't think anyone denies that Barry's execution angered many in Ireland (certainly the Republicans used it for their purposes), but I'd like a cite for the rest of the world caring. Was it really noticed anywhere except maybe among the Irish population of America? I'd like something better than "Terry Golway says". -R. fiend (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Good. Glad this needless discussion is over. I accept your surrender. -R. fiend (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Is "As a result of his death by hanging, Barry’s status as a historical figure was immediate," supposed to mean something? I insert "Celebrated" for the time being, but you will have to explaine why you are removing referenced information, and removing  “pantheon of Irish nationalism” which in this context is correctly being used. --Domer48 (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Celebrated" is fine. I'm not married to any particular phrasing, but the article does not need tons of selected quotes from other authors littered throughout each paragraph, and metaphors and other colorful language should be avoided in an encyclopedia article as much as possible. Excessive quotes "disrupt the writing" and tend to "appear less than professional", turning paragraphs into "a scrapbook of others musings" rather than "an originally composed work" for an "open-content encyclopedia". -R. fiend (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

text: It's not "removing" information, it's rephrasing it, which is what one does when writing original material derived from other sources. It's turning overly colorful language into a factual statement. Yes, more than one person has used the metaphor of "pantheon" to describe Irish martyrdom (in addition to your several google books hits, I get 7 regular google hits for that term, at least one of which is derived from this very article). That doesn't matter, the issue remains that too much of this article is snippets of quotes from other writers, strung together to form the semblance of an article. I'd like this article to get to the point where we can remove the ugly template, and trimming the intro of quotes is a large part of that. There is still more to be done. -R. fiend (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: Editors should not change referenced information to suite their opinions, and edit warring to push a POV is also counter productive. --Domer48 (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referenced information 

message: I was copyediting the article and I wondered if the inclusion of the entire lyric of the song is really helping the article? If not I suggest removing it. --John (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: nah!--Vintagekits (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I too thought of that. As it seems inappropriately long for a Wikipedia article and there are copyright concerns, I'll remove it unless there are any compelling reasons to keep it. --John (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd keep a few lines. Ones that sum it up well. That's allowed regardless of the copyright issue, and it won't make the article any longer than need be. -R. fiend (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point. Let me see what I can do. --John (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Considering the age of the song from around 1921/22 I doubt any copyright still exists on it, the song is readly available from a number websites so I don't think that is a issue.  If it could be moved to Wikisource it could then be linked to.--Padraig (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know Irish copyright law, but I'd suspect you are probably correct... and it isn't likely someone who wrote folk lyrics 90ish years ago is going to be hitting the foundation with a lawsuit.  I wouldn't take the fact that it is reprinted as evidence though; I could point out songs written > 1 year ago that are clearly still copywritten but have full lyric text printed on the internets without any clear permission...--Isotope23 talk 20:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe keep the first stanza and source it out to a site with the full list of lyrics, or add it to Wikisource and link it from the article.--Isotope23 talk 20:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That makes sense. In the meantime I have trimmed it to the last verse and removed two of the images; four grave/monument/plaque photos seemed excessive. --John (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song 

message: Any particular reason a bunch of citations are commented out in the lead? At the very least, it would help if the HTML comments there gave some indication what's going on. - Jmabel | Talk 18:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read these parts of the discussion, NPOV and Intro, should give you an idea. Should it be disputed again, I will add them back. --Domer48 (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  References are not for the benefit of doubters who nose through the page source. Either a ref is a reliable and pertinent source and belongs in the article, or it isn't and doesn't. I'm un-commenting these. Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reason there is so many direct quotes is because if you you try to include the content contained in the quote and put it in your own words, it will be challanged. You will be asked for more references, the content will be removed, reverted, the whole nine yards. Well that has been my experiance? --Domer48 (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Controversial subjects attract a lot of scrutiny. That's just something inherent to Wikipedia. If the quotes can be traced to accurate sources, then they can be put in citation tags themselves. Have a look at  for the parameters it accepts. If the article is to improve it must attempt to follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style as closely as it can, and excessive use of direct quotation in place of well-referenced prose is a red flag. This article (in its current form) is still very young, and has lots of room to grow and obtain Good Article status in future. Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Maybe I shouldn't have said "controversial" so much as "that bring up strong feelings in people". I've got the page watchlisted; I can't promise anything, but I'll try to help with the copyediting. Chris Cunningham (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Interesting article. While having a song written about you is probably noteworthy, extensive quotes of song lyrics are inherently unencyclopedic. --John (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight trim 

message: I think the section on his writings should go, as they're basically filler. He's not a writer in any meaningful sense, and I see no reason to include bits from his homework assignments in an encyclopedia. I've seen no similar examples from other articles. As many have pointed out, and as the banner template indicates, this article is very quote heavy. Getting rid of these ones will be a help. R. fiend (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this mean no one objects? If that's he case, I'll go ahead and remove the section. R. fiend (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the removal of this material. Unless he was notable as a writer we do not need more than a brief mention of his writing, if that. --John (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Writings

message: The article states that Kevin was armed with a .38 Mauser Parabellum, but to the best of my knowledge, no such weapon exists. It is however possible that the author is refering to the "incorrectly named" Luger P08. In light of this, and without an informed source, it may be better to refer to it as a semi-automatic pistol. Cheers, 'Arry Boy (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know next to nothing about weapons, but here is a link which might help, . It appears that there is a weapon called a Mauser Parabellum. I simply quoted from the source. If you know about weapons, maybe we could work out which one it is? --Domer48 (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Domer48. Yes, they are Parabellum-Pistoles Luger P08. The I.R.A. would also have had Webley Revolver's, swiped from the Tans & the R.I.C! They also had Mauser C96's, but they are big hand guns and not easy to conceal like the P08. Hope this helps. All the best, 'Arry Boy (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: .38 Mauser Parabellum

message: For 24 hours. Don't edit war. If there's consensus for a change in text then submit an editprotected request SirFozzie (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a comment; I'm seeing a number of editors, usually opposed (like Domer and R.Fiend), and these people seem to be in agreement and have put in a bunchload of work into getting this article into a shape that all can agree on. Excellent work, guys. Then I see an anon editor who just hops IP addresses and spends months reverting to their revision which is clearly against consensus. Just sayin' ... - Alison ❤ 03:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: On the 7 September 1919, 14 soldiers were ambushed in Fermoy as they made their way to Wesleyan church.The opperation was planned by Liam Lynch, later to become IRA Chief of Staff, to capture their weapons. However during the ambush, one of the soldiers was killed with another three wounded. The Real Chief: Liam Lynch, Media Ryan, Mercier Press Cork 2005, , pg. 36-8. Now I don't know when the first British soldier was killed, and if someone could let me know, but based on Media Ryans' book it was not 20 September 1920. I have therefore removed the recent addition to the lead. --Domer48'fenian' 14:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: While I think having so much of the text of Barry's affadavit is historically interesting, its a little out of proportion to the rest of the article. Is there an argument for editing it so that only the salient points come across? I think it could be summarised quite easily. Most people do not know the details of Barry's torture so the text is certainly valuable however, the quote currently in the article could be moved to Wikisource with the appropriate link. I'd do it myself, but I'm interested in getting other people's opinions first and I also don't really know how to move things to Wikisource! This article has some great material in it but is certainly in need of some cleaning up and perhaps restructuring. ANB (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The article has been overly laden with quotes for some time. It's been substantially improved from its worst point in that regard, but this suggestion would further improve the article, in my opinion. -R. fiend (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

text: That seems fine to me. --Domer48'fenian' 19:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies for the revert.  I saw an IP removing content and assumed it was vandalism.  I will revert myself, if someone has not already done so. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Affadavit

message: The introduction should mention the fact that the three soldiers Barry helped murder were as young as he was. (92.3.204.205 (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop adding POV. 2 lines of K303 13:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: An image used in this article, File:Church Street immediately after Kevin Barry's arrest..JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Church Street immediately after Kevin Barry's arrest..JPG Nominated for Deletion

message: Whitehead, Washington and Humphries were soldiers not police. See ref.. The notion that there were no regular army in Ireland at this time  per this edit and summary is simply incorrect. RashersTierney (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree Rashers Mo ainm~Talk 18:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise, Agree Rashers.--Domer48'fenian' 18:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

text: That is patent nonsense, but lets see what sources you can provide for this view. RashersTierney (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

text: So where are your sources for this novel theory, apparently overlooked by a generation of historians? RashersTierney (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

text: ISBN and page number? RashersTierney (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This ref. should settle the matter. RashersTierney (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

text: The 3 British soldiers were armed and trained to kill so less of the poor little innocent teenagers, it shows your POV. Mo ainm~Talk 21:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said they were "poor little innocent" teenages Mo ainm? Please refrain from distorting other editors comments so you can label them as POV. JeremeyMurphy's arguement doesn't appear to have any POV motive and is simply a matter of specific classification which they have failed to provide evidence of thus far. Mabuska (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is an implication that he is making or why mention that the "teenagers [were] murdered" twice in 3 posts, and you know exactly why they are doing it but I wouldn't expect anything more from you, have you anything to add or did you just arrive to shit stir? Mo ainm~Talk 23:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an assumption on your behalf and nothing more. Ironically what have you added? Rather than posting provocative comments Mo ainm, i suggest you be civil and assume good faith with JeremeyMurphy - a new editor who never posted what your implying he is, i.e. "poor little innocent teengaers". Mabuska (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you agree with him that there were no british soldiers in Ireland, or are you just going to throw links around and pontificate. Mo ainm~Talk 00:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you even read my first comment, you'd notice the answer to your question was here before you even typed it. Mabuska (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

text: As Rashiers has mentioned several times JeremyMurphy, you need to provide sourced evidence to back up your claims, and so far Rashiers has provided sourced evidence.Mabuska (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Editor is blocked as a suspected prolific sock. RashersTierney (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So i realised after i had posted my comment. Mabuska (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Soldiers or RIC Auxiliaries?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kevin Barry. 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/20071202182547/http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?locID=383&docID=511 to http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?locID=383&docID=511
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131212042116/http://www.carlowcountymuseum.com/collections/personalities/pages/kevin-barry.aspx to http://www.carlowcountymuseum.com/collections/personalities/pages/kevin-barry.aspx
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) 22:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Here are extracts from Doherty's article of 2000, which other editors may wish to incorporate into the article:
"The raid on 20 20 September, in which twenty-five I.R.A. men took part, was daring but amateurishly bungled. The troops int eh back fo the lorry were to be held up page three men, Seán O'Neill, Bob O'Flanaghan and Kevin Barry, while their comrades were to close in from the front and across the street. According to O'Neill, he, O'Flanaghan and barry approached the lorry from the rear and ordered the soldiers to drop their arms. They all did so with the exception of one man, who, discovering that he was not covered, opened fire. Firing then became general, and in the ensuing mêlée, five solider and three of the raiders were hit. The attack broke up in confusion, with rebels scattering in all directions. Barry, however, for some reason ducked under the lorry and was captured, gun in hand." (page 218).
"So as to allow the civilian Barry to be tried by court martial, he was offically regarded as belonging to the 1st Battalion, the Lancashire fusiliers. Only the first charge was proceeded with, and when asked to plead, Barry replied simply "I refuse to recognise the court." The case against them was then outlined by prosecuting counsel. On 20 September the ration lorry arrived at the baker a little after 11 a.m. The N.C.O. in charge, Sergeant banks, got down and entered the a passage leading to the bakery. Two unarmed privates also got down and the sergeant returned for them and led them into the yard of the bakery. Banks then heard shots fired outside in the street, and at the same time he and his unarmed men were confronted by a man with a revolver, who fired two shots at them. The sergeant turned into an office, where he was confronted by another man with a revolver, who stunned him with a blow of the gun. Four or five men armed with revolvers appeared in the yard at the same time and fired down the passage. Meanwhile the lorry in the street was attacked by a party of men. One man came towards the lorry from the front, firing a pistol in the air. Four other men, including Kevin Barry, approached the lorry from the rear and as they came up drew pistols and shouted: "Hands up! Hand over your arms." Without waiting further they opened fire. The accused was seen by two witnesses to fire a pistol into the lorry, and Private Washington immediately fell dead, shot through the chin. Privates Whitehead and Humphries were dangerously wounded and both died later. When the attack had been driven off, Barry was spotted under the lorry and, on being challenged by the sergeant, emerged from his hiding place and dropped his pistol. This was subsequently found to be an automatic revolver containing three live cartridges, one of which was ready to fire. A bullet found in Private Whitehead's body was of the same calibre and character as the ones discovered in the magazine of Barry's revolver, which showed evidence of having been recently fired. When asked by an officer of the Lancashire Fusiliers why he had attacked the lorry, Barry allegedly replied: "We were after the rifles." (page 231).
On the penultimate page of the article, Doherty notes that while Sir Henry Wilson and Sir Nevil Macready agreed that it was right to hang Barry to damage republican morale, "Macready, the senior military man on the ground, was much less optimistic", and quotes two pessimistic notes by him on the long-term damage Martial Law would have. M. A. Doherty was a member of the School of Social Sciences, Humanities and Languages, University of Westminster. Fergananim (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Doherty, 2000

message: At the time of Barry's arrest the article reads: " His comrades fled and he was left behind. He was then spotted and arrested by the soldiers." In fact he had hidden behind a cart after the shootings and was arrested by two of the surviving soldiers, he wasn't "left behind".78.16.89.75 (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Left behind" by his unit