Talk:Michael Collins (Irish leader)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Entry needs editing

Someone who isn't British and is also a competent English writer needs to go over the entry several times correcting the terrible grammar. I went through two sections and boredom became my companion. Adraeus 08:28, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Took a brief stab at grammar correction and sentence construction. 9917

I have begun a large tidy-up of this article to remove speculation, repetition (eg IRB) and POV (have got about 1/2 way down). The section on Dail Eireann is problematic: there is a wordy chunk of text about the legitimacy it and subsequent Dails conferred on various strands of the IRA and others, which is not relevant in such detail. I propose moving much of this to the relevant "Dail Eireann" article(s); comments welcome. bigpad (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Page Name

Can the word "Patriot" ever be NPOV? - Khendon 15:56 Oct 1, 2002 (UTC)

I agree, its a loaded title. Maybe we could also have John Ashcroft (American Patriot), and Adolf Hitler (German Father) -Sv

Revolutionary? Politician? Leader? - Khendon 09:06 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

Michael Collins (terrorist) or Michael Collins (freedomfighter)? hmm.. Depends on POV... -'Vert

Why not simply [Michael Collins (Irish leader)]? JTD 01:34 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

Much better. Much much, better. "Leader" is a good word. -&#35918&#30505sv

Well done you stupid fool. Adolf Hitler chose the word "Fuhrer" as his title because he was of the same opinion -It means 'Leader'. And those of you concerned so greatly with spelling and grammar, why dont you put up your Union Jack now, and have done with it!

---

Guerilla

"Guerilla" isn't a non-NPOV word. It's non-NPOV to assert that he was involved in guerilla activities if that isn't fact - is that the case? - Khendon 10:01 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Can we manage without triple negatives, please? :)Martin

The article didn't say he was a guerilla. It said the Fenians were. That is nonsense. Most of the Fenians' time was spent talking about revolution and fighting among themselves. They engaged in isolated and frequently farcically incompetent attempts at insurrection, and occasional and again frequently farcically incompetent attempts at violence, that did lead to loss of life, their own as much as anyone else. Calling them guerillas credits them with a degree of military capability and organisation that they never possessed. Because of that, historians do not use the word 'guerilla' when talking about the Fenians, given that its use would mislead the reader as to the nature, effectiveness and actions of the movement. The word was added in here by a user who has been adding in simplistic additions to Irish articles that have had to be removed; in some cases though their facts were right, their use of language would mislead the reader (eg, calling Parnell a protestant leader is usually taken in the Irish context to mean a leader of protestants (ie, unionists) whereas Parnell was a nationalist leader of a mainstream nationalist largely catholic movement who happened personally to be a protestant, as was already explained in the article).

The user also added in blatently inaccurate stuff on O'Connell and in other articles - though some stuff is OK so they are not a vandal, just someone who does not understand what they are doing in the way they add in stuff and how the wrong word in the wrong context can inadvertently mislead the reader. Guerilla in this context here is a classic example of this. And guerilla had already been debated on wiki some months ago as a potentially POV term to which different meanings may be attached, either negative or positive, by an individual reader. As such it was judged a term best avoided if possible. In this article it is completely wrong.

FearÉIREANN 18:11 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

collins wasnt really a guerilla more of an organiser he organised ira atttacks but never took part in them many believe his lack of guerilla experince contributed to his death in that he didnt kkep his head down —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bouse23 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Restorations

I did some restoration to the text on this page in April but have noted that the changes made by 66.30.242.164 went beyond what I picked up at that time. I have now restored the notes that were deleted. Tiles 01:42 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

AAAAGH! The edit from hell. Someone made a lot of changes tonight. Many of them are excellent, many disastrous. Correct spelling changes been made, disastrous spelling changes have been made. Accuracy has been tightened in some areas, gone out the window in others. So the choice is:

1. Revert and lose a lot of very good changes 2. Leave unreverted and keep newly inserted major inaccuracies and wrong links 3. Spend hours and hours with two screens open, checking each change to see should it stay or go! And there I was about to go to bed 5 minutes ago!!! FearÉIREANN 06:40 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Weird circular link: Collins,Begin,IRA,PLO

Doing some research on the IRA for a term paper, I found an interesting (and little known) link between Michael Collins and Menachem Begin, and, oddly, the 1980s-era IRA. Goes something like this. Michael Collins was studied by Menachem Begin, who based many of his tactics off of Collins' tactios in the Anglo-Irish War. Begin's memoirs, meanwhile, were distributed to IRA commanders, and were said by one to be a "manual for guerrila warfare". Yes, that means the IRA, which cooperated extensively with the PLO, used the tactics of (at least) one of the pre-State armies of Israel. The irony is delicious, and while I dunno how to work it into the article, I hope someone would. --Penta 15:36, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Position in the Provisional Government

Was he Chairman of the Provisional Government as the link at the top of the page says or President of the Provisional Government as it says in the section The Provisional GovernmentPhilip Baird Shearer 23:25, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Michael Collins was Chairman of the Provisional Government (Cathaoirleach an Rialtais Shealadaigh na hÉireann), and after Griffiths death became President of Dáil Eireann as well.

Holding two offices was not unique, for example, Collins was appointed Minister of Finance of Dáil Eireann on 10 January 1922, and of the Provisional Government on 18 January 1922. Liam Cosgrave succeeded Collins in all three posts, until Saorstát Eireann was declared in December 1922. --garryq 16:30, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Israel and Taiwan?

" 3. Indeed, the conflicts to establish Israel (against the British) and Taiwan (in the face of the Communist revolution in China) were both called 'Operation Michael Collins'." <Added on 00:35, 20 Sep 2004 by 195.137.11.151>

References supporting these would be helpful. The second sounds particularly unlikely as the Chinese Nationalists were a ruling party established for decades, and viewed Taiwan as part of China.

Googling "operation michael collins" gives only 2 results, a mirror of this page, and unrelated Hay Hill Football Club.

Both references come from Tim Pat Coogan's book on Collins. --Lochdale 20:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sexual orientation

Re an anonymous user's edit. The piece about allegations concerning Collins's sexual orientation are relevant (whereas the other rumours he spoke about aren't) because

• The rumours about Collins have been written about, discussed publicly and subject of a film script by a credible historian and producer;
• Collins's behaviour regarding men, especially his endless physical contact of the men around them (some of whom were somewhat unnerved by his actions, led to real rumours during his life and afterwards;
• the other rumours (concerning the pope and others) have no credible source, no credible evidence and are simply the product of unevidenced gossip.

On balance my conclusion is that the bisexual claims against Collins are unconvincing. Nevertheless they are real claims and so have to be explored in a factual, accurate manner, especially as they formed the central focus of the division between the rival proposed films. You can't not mention that Neil Jordan's version was subject to severe criticism by Eoghan Harris, a major Irish media columnist and historian. And that means saying what Harris's alternative version was proposing to suggest. And that means you have to explain the rumours, the claims, the background and evidence or lack thereof. It is elementary historical writing. FearÉIREANN 22:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not the anonymous user, but also think this paragraph should be deleted. To respond to the defence of it:-

> The rumours about Collins have been written about, discussed publicly and subject of a film script by a credible historian and producer;

>Nevertheless they are real claims and so have to be explored in a factual, accurate manner, especially as they formed the central focus of the division between the rival proposed films. You can't not mention that Neil Jordan's version was subject to severe criticism by Eoghan Harris, a major Irish media columnist and historian.

Eoghan Harris is a credible historian ? What historical volumes has he had published ? What academic positions has he held in the discipline of history ? What historical papers has he had published in peer-reviewed journals ?

As regards him being a major Irish media columnist, I would dispute how significant he is (I certainly never read him), and would suggest in any event being a major media columnist is of no significance in this regard. Rio Ferdinand the football player is technically a major media columnist in that he has a column in the UK's best selling daily newspaper, but I doubt he has any useful input to offer here.

In any event,there's another page for discussion of the film,and any putative rivals to it. The film is nothing inherently to do with Michael Collins.

>And that means you have to explain the rumours, the claims, the background and evidence or lack thereof. It is elementary historical writing.

Basic historical writing involves reviewing source documentation, assessing evidence, reading other historical treatments of the subject matter,interviewing any available witnesses, publishing bibliographies, foot noting your sources. Has Harris does any of this on this topic ? Can you refer me to any document he's published of any scholarly,academic or historiographic worth on the topic of Collin's sexuality ?

And as a last point Michael Collin's sexuality is not a matter of any historical import, and does not become so even if the suggestion of bisexuality is true. Bisexuality or homosexuality is no more worthy of discussion in a scholarly biography than heterosexuality, unless it has some actual influence on the course of the subject's life. Obviously any discussion of Oscar Wilde must mention his sexuality, because of the catastrophic consequences of that sexuality. No such circumstances exist in this case. Does one mention in Winston Churchill's biography that he was so far as is known entirely heterosexual ? Of course not.

Colloquially and simply, who cares if Collins was bisexual ? It had no discernible consequences on his life, and discussing it is, I suggest, largely prurient gossip.

I've removed the following.

However, owing to the devout Catholicism of figures such as Collins and Pearse, such ideas of homosexuality or bisexuality do not have much basis.

Who wrote such rubbish? If they seriously think that devout Catholics aren't gay they are living in cloud cookoo-land. It is so absurd it is laughable. They should go to some gay bars in Rome. They are full of priests and bishops from the Vatican. And it is an open secret that some Irish bishops are gay, but as I am opposed to outing people I won't name them. And at least two 20th century popes were known to be gay. FearÉIREANN 05:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Collins touched Men? Therefore he is gay? I guess all Spanish and Italian men are gay! Hardly, what utter rubbish. This sounds like it came from a Rupert Murdoch rag. Please remove this reference.

&&& The fact is that a few of his contemporaries gossipped (if historical gosssip counts as fact) about him being gay. Whether that gossip is noteworthy is itself debateable. It's very possible that Collins' numerous enemies started these rumors using the proclivity to wrestling and back patting as substantiation (slim evidence but in a climate of homophobia, not much evidence is needed). Further, the rumors have taken on greater significance after his death.

Yes, there were rumors, but given the basis & the lack of impact, we should strike homosexuality from this article completely.

-rumors of sexual orientation aren't really germane to the subject, IMHO. it sounds to me like revisionism favoring a particular POV. strike it. 9917

Black propaganda

Then the allegations need to be distilled into a sensible and reasonable text, and put in contemporary context. The story stinks of black propaganda, following Roger Casement (who certainly was gay, but at the time it was used a character assassination, not an incidental item like he was white or male or had dark hair). The present text is so bad that I've removed it, but it is here if anyone wants to refer to it. --Red King 18:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Along with other key figures in the Irish revolution Roger Casement, Eoin O'Duffy and Padraig Pearse, rumours have long existed as to Collins's sexual orientation. Collins' famous tendency to constantly physically touch men close to him was much commented about in his lifetime. Some suggested that it was purely platonic in nature; macho horseplay among men in stressful revolutionary situations where they could face death or torture at any time. Collins in particular liked to wrestle his men, often catching them off guard. Often the wrestling led to his biting of their ears, "a bit of ear" being a phrase often associated with Collins.

Others however have suggested a sexual aspect to the horseplay. The rumours and rival interpretations were reflected in the controversy over the making of a film about Collins (see below). The original script for a film to be called Mick, by writer and [self-styled] historian Eoghan Harris unambiguously suggested that Collins was bisexual, based, according to Harris, on information supplied to him by people he had known in his younger days who had also known Collins. (Harris, like Collins, is from Cork, but is well known for his opposition to militant Irish republicanism, past and present).

However, the script by Neil Jordan used for his film, while mentioning the physical touching in which Collins engaged, regarded it simply as macho horseplay. Jordan's script did make a number of controversial, factually inaccurate adaptations to the story, in part to appease U.S. audiences whom it was believed would not have understood, or not have appreciated, the full political complexity of the story. Critics of Jordan's script also claimed that any mention of Collins' alleged bisexualty was also removed because it would have offended predominantly Catholic Irish-Americans who reacted with fury when claims were made about the orientation of Pearse, seeing claims of Pearse's homosexuality as a 'slur' on his character.

Tim Pat Coogan, the author of one of the most comprehensive biographies of Collins, has emphatically rejected any suggestion that Collins was anything other than heterosexual. Despite being engaged to be married, Collins had numerous affairs, and there is no known documentary evidence confirming his alleged bisexuality.

It isn't black propaganda but an accurate distillation of widespread rumours for eighty years concerning Collins. Emmet Dalton even faced rumours that he was Collins's lover, as did Eoin O'Duffy. Collins "bit of ear" physical antics with men were legendary. Harris, as he admitted on the Late Late Show, intended to cover the issue in his screenplay Mick. I've reinserted the paragraph, which is a factually accurate distillation of a widely repeated claim made about Collins even in his lifetime. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• I was referring to the original rumour as black propaganda, not the text above.

Harris is not an authoritive source - just an old penny-a-line hack who wanted to make a name for himself on the Late Late and get a few more article payments out of the Indo. Even if there is some substance to it (and given that Collins appears to have been a raving heterosexual by all other accounts, I would take some convincing), then the size of this para is wildly disproportionate. Similar allegations were made about Winston Churchill and Edward Heath, but these articles make no reference to them. Why? because they are not encylopediac. If true, they had no effect whatever on the broad direction of their careers, on their effect on their peers. In the case of Oscar Wilde, it is only relevant because he wrote the Ballad of Reading Gaol due to ending up there because of the laws of the time. In the case of Roger Casement, it is only relevant because the Casement Letters were produced to destroy his reputation (according to the mores of the the time) and to extinguish the support that might have prevented his execution. In the case of Collins, these insinuations show the hallmarks of exactly the same process - first by Dublin Castle, then repeated by the irregulars. Even if true, they are irrelevant. At best, it is worth a couple of lines under Trivia, which is exactly where I have put it. --Red King 00:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

1. to call Harris a "penny-a-line hack" indicates that you are approaching the issue from a POV, not NPOV.
2. whether you require convinving is irrelevant. Your POV, like mine, is irrelevant on the issue.
3. If a serious effort was made to make a film on Heath that featured his sexuality prominently then both the film and the claim would have to be mentioned in his article.
4. The claim did not come from the British. It came from the pro-treaty IRA.
5. The claim that "if true, they are irrelevant" is so mindbogglingly ludicrous as to be not worth answering.
6. To call rumours about someone's sexual orientation "trivia" is both POV and shows very poor understanding of encyclopædic writing standards, which take people's private lives a lot more seriously than merely a piece of trivia. Again it is a mindbogglingly POV attitude. It may be trivial to you. To many others it isn't. Calling it such is blatently POV. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Then why not provide some citations or some references to legitimate biographies or historiagraphical records relating to Collins? I have removed that section because it is nothing but unascertainable innuendo. It should stay removed until some credible source can be found.

Lochdale

Michael Collins was heterosexual, period, any other allegations were just a means for defamation from anti-treaty, far left nationalists and whomever else likes to cause speculation. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Mistake in commentary

There is a mistake here: " He joined the IRB through Sam Maguire, a Protestant republican from Cork, in November 1913. He came to play a central role in the IRB, ultimately ending up as its president within little more than a decade."

He died in '22.

I thought he joined the IRB in London? FearÉireann might wanna look at this. - User:Dalta

Saorstát Éireann/Poblacht na hÉireann

Is there a mistake in this note at the bottom: Two Irish Gaelic titles correspond to the term 'Irish Republic': Saorstát Éireann (which literally meant "Free State of Ireland") and Poblacht na hÉireann. Irish language purists preferred the former title, which came from real previously existing Gaelic words, unlike the latter, a specially Gaeliscised word.

Should that say the 'latter title'. As it is it's saying that Saorstát Éireann is a previously existing Gaelic word, which I don't think it is. I'm not etmolygist, but I would imagine 'Saorstát', specifically the 'stát' bit would come from the English 'state' and 'Poblacht' would come from the Irish 'pobal' meaning community. Making Poblacht na hÉireann the purist word. Anyone wanna check this? - User:Dalta

deValera Comment

Could deValera's comment "It's my considered opinion that in the fullness of time, history will record the greatness of Collins and it will be recorded at my expense" be included in the Collins Legacy section to show that Collins was still highly regaurded by a statesman such as deValera 44 years after his death.DeValera considered Collins so great that his legacy could be tarnished by Collins and because of this it should be included.--Play Brian Moore 22:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely think that this comment should be added to the article. --Lochdale 20:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

'Irish Name' Fad

Why do people insist on back-inventing fake 'Irish' names for people. Michael Collins was christened 'Michael Collins' and probably didn't speak more than a few words of Irish, no more than my Grandfather (who was also born in Cork) did. 'Michael Collins' is not an 'Anglicisation' of his 'real' name. If you had wrote 'Michaél Ǒ Coileáin on a piece of paper and dropped it in front of him, he probably wouldn't have recognised it. You might as well include his 'Star Wars' name and his 'Porn Star' name. Nonsense. 65.213.215.153

Actually Michael Collins was an ardent admirer and diligent student of the Irish language.

I take your point, the Irish form should really only be included if it was used by Collins himself at any point. Are you certain it wasn't? --Ryano 13:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Anglo-Irish Treaty signatures.gif says it was. Demiurge 13:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

That should wrap that one up then, in my view. --Ryano 13:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Its probably a bit late to point out that he used the Irish signature of his name at least some of the time - there is a copy for all to see in Tim Pat Coogan's coffee table book on the Irish Civil War. - PH

Hmmm...I stand corrected. Anybody got the recipe for humble pie? 65.213.215.153

But i do agree with your point...just not here if he used it86.42.138.22 02:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent addition

Who has just ruined this article with the History of republicanism table? Collins was murdered by so called republicans and has more in common with the policies pursued by people like WT Cosgrave who were moderate in their views. I suggest that Collins' distinction from hardcore Republicanism, people who regard him as a traitor, be made clear. Collins signed the Treaty, drafted the first Free State constitution and was murdered by extreme Republicansim. There is a major difference between patriotism as advocated by Collins and the political movement that is Irish Republicanism.(unsigned)

I've removed it. I've proposed the frankly hideous and POV template be deleted altogether. Please go to WP:TFD and cast your vote on the issue there. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you so much, it was hideous, especially in the context of Collins

I would be interested in exploring the possibility, under the Collins legacy, that his 1918 to 1921 campaign against the British contained many of the components that we regard today as terrorist. I realize that terrorism is regarded as a strong POV term (more so than guerilla) but I do not mean this in a negative way. Terrorism was a very effective means for Collins to win independence for Ireland and has been used by numerous freedom fighters (including the anti-Nazi resistance movements during WWII) as well as “bad guys” throughout the 20th century. Can Collins be regarded as the first modern or urban terrorist? Now please, all you Irish Republicans, don’t shoot me for suggesting this, I am actually very sympathetic toward Michael Collins and his cause. It is just that the events of 9/11 have caused me to wonder about this and I would like to hear the opinions of people more knowledgeable about Irish history. Jay Gregg 20:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you could certainly argue that. Collins had people assassinated, murdered if you like to achieve a political objective. These included police detectives, judges, informers etc. The idea was certainly to terrorise people to stop them co-operating with the British hadministration in Ireland. However, if by terrorist you mean the deliberate targetting of civilians (with the exception of police informers), Collins is not guilty. He did not sanction bombing of civilian or economic targets to my knowledge or the killing of people based on their ethnic or religious background. At one point he threatened to have one of the "squad" shot for the shooting a polceman against whom he had a personal grudge. Jdorney 13:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that is a very good point about Collins not targeting civilians. Perhaps even "terrorists" were more civilized in this bygone era than we are today. Jay Gregg

I believe that until the term "terrorism", and the title "terrorist" have been defined in a definitive sense these words should be replaced by the verbage of the times in which they reside. There are a multitude of definitions being scattered throughout academia, and specialists in the field are currently resolving this issue. This should be the NPOV stance.

can I just point out that you can't be a terrorist in your own country! so Michael collins wasn't a terrorist

Just a thought but if you consult a dictionary or look up "terrorist" in Wikipedia, you will find that the definition of a terrorist does not discern between acts committed against your own people and those against foreign nationals the only qualification is that the group be civilian...the Wikipedia definition is as follows: Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or ideological goals (fear in latin).[1] Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a "madman" attack), and deliberately target "non-combatants".

I think it's safe to say that one can be a terrorist in one's own country...for example Hitler's SS committed acts of terrorism against German nationals in order to control by fear as have many other individuals in history; Pol Pot, Edi Amin, Chairman Mao, Lenin etc...I would dare to say that by this definition, Michael Collins, by association as a founding father and leader of a recognised terrorist Group (IRA) that has perpetrated many crimes against civilian targets (Birmingham and Guildford pub bombings, the bombing of the Queen's Own Guards while on a ceremonial parade through the center of London packed with civilian spectators, etc...), therefore qualifies as a terrorist...[Joanne]

You're right about a terrorist in his own country, but you are very wrong about calling Collins a terrorist because of what the IRA decides to do decades after his death. You yourself quoted above that a terrorist "deliberately target[s] "non-combatants"" and it has already been shown above that Collins did not do this. ukforever 19:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Civil War

This section is a bit scanty isn't it? What about Collin's desperate attempts to get all the nationalist movement on board for the treaty? He actually reached a comproimse with the anti-treatyites, by agreeing to a republican constitution, but the British, in particular Loyd George vetoed it. He also tried in vain to re-unite the IRA, founding an "army re-unification committee" with an executive of pro and anti treaty delegates and tried to use the IRB to to smoothe over divisions between IRA officers.

More important, this article says that De Valera formed a republican government and launched a campaign against he Free State. This is totally wrong. The Civil War started when Collins attacked the Four Courts Garrison (who were not at the time supported by the IRA executive) on the insistence of Winston Churchhill, at which point people like De Valera, Liam Lynch, Liam Deasy etc had to choose sides. After this, De Valera and co formed a kind of protest republican government that no one took much notice of.

And another thing, the idea that Collins wanted to "take the gun out of Irish politics" as it says in the film, for example, is completely incorrect. Collins, an unrepentent IRB man, dedicated to armed conspiracy, took the treaty as a tactical concession, "freedom to achieve freedom". His next project, as is well documented in, for example, Michael Hopkinson's "Green Against Green", was to launch an officially deniable IRA guerrilla offensive against Northern Ireland. He had been sending IRA units to border areas and sending arms to the northern IRA throughout 1922. This was interupted by the civil war, which Collins was trying to bring to an end when he was killed. It is more than likely that if he lived, Colliins would have continued this policy, perhaps leading to open war with the North and/or the British. Perhaps wisely, WT Cosgrave abandoned Collins policies when he took over the Provisional government and recognised NI. Jdorney 13:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that details about the Civil War should go in the Irish Civil War article, otherwise you run the risk of selective duplication. But the remaining errors should be corrected certainly. --Red King 20:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

More problems

As an addition to the comments above, Reading through the whole article, I'm struck by how POV it is. Everything leads up to Collins doing the right thing and signing the treaty and the people who opposed him are neatly reduced to "extreme republicans" Cathal Brugha and Eamonn de Valera. The civil war is mentioned in passing and it looks as if Collins was assassinated out of the blue in 1922, rather than killed in an ambush while leading a major Free State offensive against republican held territory in Munster. Changes I would like to make, or see made:

1. The War of Independence period. Collins and Mulchahy were the two men basically in charge of directing the IRA campaign. They did this by sending organisers to each area and through contacts with IRA officers through the secret IRB. When IRA officers reported to Dublin, they reported to Collins. One of the reasons why Brugha and Collins did not see eye to eye was that Brugha did not like the IRB and thought the Army should be responsable to him as minister of defence. The rivalry with Cathal Brugha and Eamonn de Valera was been greatly exagerated however in light of civil war divisions. Remember de Valera was away in America for most of this time anyway.

2. The Treaty. The split over the Treaty was a lot more complicated than "moderate Collins" v "extreme" de Valera. For one thing, de Valera was not actually that important in the outbreak of the civil war. He was not a military leader nor was he responsable for the occupation of the Four Courts. Nor was he that extreme, he favoured a compromise over sectins of the treaty he was not happy with. For another thing, many IRA people, eg Lynch, Deasy and more felt that Collins had exceeded his authority in the negotiations, but were prepared to come to a compromise by adopting a republican type constitution. As I've suggested in the previous paragraph, Collins wanted to make this work, but the British vetoed it.

Returning to another point mentoned above. Collins wasn't that moderate. He was just pragmatic. He was and remained a militant Irish republican, he just thought the Treaty was usefull "stepping stone". He was organising a guerrilla campaign against Northern Ireland in 1922. He had Sir Henry Hughes Wilson (a commander of British forces in the north) assassinated in London in June 1922 -for which the anti-treaty IRA were blamed and which made the British insist on Collins attacking the Four Courts. Nor were all the Free Staters moderates. Take Eoin O'Duffy for example, who was just as fierce a nationalist as the anti-treaty side and he was later attracted to fascism. In the 1930s he publicly talked about invading Northern Ireland.

Jdorney 03:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It may not be possible, even after a century, for an article to be written about this period of Irish history that is not POV in one way or another. Jay Gregg

Minor Additon

Changed the line ".....Denis ("Sonny") O'Neill, a former British marksman...." To former British Army, as to avoid any confusion regarding Sonny's nationality 195.7.34.195 14:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC) K.B. McKenna

Date of birth

Is his date of birth the 16th or the 12th --Dr.B

michael's date of bith is 16/10/1890Sullibhain 13:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Name your price

I've heard, when he met Churchill, who remarked he once had a £20000 price on his head, Collins, who then had £10000 on his, quipped, "Well, Mr. Churchill, everyone knows you're twice the man I am." Worth including? Trekphiler 18:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I heard it slightly differently. Churchill had a £20 price on his head and mentioned this to Collins who made some remark about inflation in return.

It would have to have a proper citation to be included. --Red King 00:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Liam Neeson tells this story to Charlie Rose, saying he heard it from Irish actor Richard Harris.

Collins was, like, washing his hands and the door opens and, you know, it is Winston Churchill (...) Churchill apparently said to him (...) "Mr Collins, when I was your age there was a price of £20,000 on my head" And at that time there was a price of £10,000 on Michael Collins' head, you know. And Collins, apparently, drying his hands said "So, Mr Churchill, everyone knows you are twice the man I am".

You can watch it at: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9137103073227204931 from 5:30 to 7:15 approx. --Germanico Baltar 12:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Place of Killing: exact place? meaning?

En route through County Cork on 22 August 1922, at the village of Béal na mBláth (Irish, "the Mouth of Flowers")

According to Edward O' Mahony's book, Michael Collins was shot at Glanarouge. All the same, the author remarks that Bruno O'Donoghue stated the correct name of "Beal-na-mBlath". Please have a look at:

http://www.generalmichaelcollins.com/Michael%20Collins%20Life%20&%20Times/12.THE_AMBUSH.html It's just there on the first paragraph. --Germanico Baltar 23:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Legacy chapter

Whereas his colleagues, whether Eamon de Valera, W.T. Cosgrave, Richard Mulcahy or Eoin O'Duffy were judged by how they handled the difficult task of building a state, Collins by his early death is simply remembered as a radical young man who faced none of their subsequent peace-time problems.

"...simply remembered as a radical young man..."?? I think this entire sentence is very much a POV-expression, and ought to be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.168.5.116 (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps it could be worded better. I think the original editor meant that as he died young he didn't have to deal with day to day business of running an ordinary government and dealing with issues like taxes, rates, pensions, the budget etc. De Valera and Cosgrave had to deal with these issues and were in office for many years so inevitably their reputations suffered/declined. If Collins had lived would his reputation has also declined or given his talents and energy, would have he achieved even greater things? We'll never known. Try re-writing the sentence to a more POV view than deleting it. Snappy56 22:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This section of the article is enitirely unfair to Collins and biased against him. Without him, Ireland would never have forced Britain to the table in the first place. Only the stupidity and jealousy of Eamon de Valera and his ilk led to the bloodshed of the Irish Civil War. Collins was a great man; in fact, one of the greatest heroes in all of history, not just Irish.

When I first read that line it struck me as very POV. He may have faced few peace-time problem but he faced every war-time problem, including negotiating the peace, which none in this list of individuals (Eamon de Valera, W.T. Cosgrave, Richard Mulcahy or Eoin O'Duffy) did. I do not think it should be reworded but completely taken out. It is irrelevant that he was killed before the peace. -- Wiki publius 00:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this entire section is filled the speculation and opinion.

• Collins has gone down in Irish history as one of the great "what might have beens".
• It is doubtful he would have regarded the findings of the Irish Boundary Commission with the same equanimity as his successors.
• Whereas his colleagues, whether Éamon de Valera, W. T. Cosgrave, Richard Mulcahy or Eoin O'Duffy were judged by how they handled the difficult task of building a state, Collins by his early death is simply remembered as a radical young man who faced none of their subsequent peace-time problems.
• Many books and articles have been written about the ambush in which Michael Collins was killed at Beal na Blath and all agree that during the course of the ambush Collins ran from the protective cover...
• The term "suicidal" may be much more appropriate here than many admirers of Collins may like but the facts of the ambush as recorded clearly indicate that there is a strong possibility that Collins decided to commit indirect suicide during the heat of battle by running from cover into the open road in the hope that the enemy would shoot him, There are many reasons why Collins may have decided to take such a drastic course of action.

If there are "many books", which "all agree", why hasn't the person who wrote this cited any? Speculation on a self-inflicted suicide is hardly appropriate. -- Wiki publius 00:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely, see my comment furthur down the talk page. Its actually shocking to me that this section has been in the page for so long, especially for such a prominent person. I say wipe it out, the sooner the better, I honestly cant see much even worth salvaging once POV and unsourced OR is taken out. Russeasby 00:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with it being removed, although I think something needs to go back in at some point, obviously properly cited and NPOV. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted it, given this discussion and the one below I dont think anyone is realisticly arguing that it should have been kept. Though I agree perhaps something could be put in its place if properly sourced and written in an encylopedic tone. Russeasby 01:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Praise?

"Collins, typically, had been tipped off by his network of spies about the plan and had warned leading figures. De Valera, equally typically, had talked many into ignoring the warnings, believing if the arrests happened they would constitute a propaganda coup..."

"In retrospect, the sheer scale of Collins' workload and his achievements are impressive. From creating..."

"...Collins nearly became a one-man revolution."

Does this sound a little POV to anyone else? It's the "typically" thing that gets me in the first one... the statement that Collins' achievments are "impressive" is POV, because "impressive" is entirely subjective... and the "one-man revolution" statement sounds cool, but maybe a little on the effusive side.

I don't know how it should be edited; as my skills and experience are both limited... but does anyone have any suggestions? HXcGeek 10:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree on the "one-man revolution" thing, it's a ridiculous comment to make. While the significance of Collins' contributions to the Irish struggle for liberation is unquestionable, POV statements like this are useless and only serve to make the article less authoritative. -- Ghostreveries 11:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Edited it, do not know if it was exactly what you were looking for, but it reads a ton better Diarmada 06:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Article assessment

I just did some cleanup on the footnotes and a copyedit. While this could use more sources, I think the article is well-written and quite thorough. I think with more thorough sourcing we could propose this for Good and then Feature status. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Kathryn! I'd love to see this article become respected. Mick deserves it! I can help with sources! :) I recently learned how to use refs. Erin Go Bragh^talk 10:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about Cumann na nGaedhael

What does the fact that Fine Gael used to be called Cumann na nGaedhael have to do with Michael Collins?? 128.135.192.75 00:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's fairly tenuous but, if Collins had survived the Civil War, it is reasonable to suppose that he would have been among the leaders of Cumann na nG, since his associates founded it. Admitedly this is speculation and by rights should not be cited, but it explains why Fine Gael regard him as one of their founding fathers. --Red King 15:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Collins's legacy: Unbiased? Seriously, come on...

Give me a break:

"Michael Collins has gone down in Irish history as one of the great "what might have beens". A man of extraordinary intelligence, incredible passion but most of all a monumental work rate, his loss was a disaster for the nascent Irish state. Despite opposition, he had supported and supplied the IRA in Northern Ireland throughout the civil war, a policy which was quickly discontinued after his death. It is doubtful he would have regarded the findings of the Irish Boundary Commission with the same equanimity as his successors. His loss was made all the more tragic by the death of President Griffith only 10 days before due to stress." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.176.15 (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Reading it again, I think that there is certainly a case to answer. This section reads like a eulogy and uncited POV. However the whole article should not be tagged because of one dubious section, so I've moved the tag. I'm sure there are better editors than I am to rewrite it. --Red King 20:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Does the article also need a more human, non-political section? I see that an attempt has been made to add his dog ownership today (but without citation and in an inappropriate section). I have some family stuff but, I suppose that would be regarded as original research...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 13:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I feel this entire section should just be deleted, its awful, POV, weaselly and unencyclopedic. Relevent facts could be moved to relevent sections elsewhere in the article. Russeasby 00:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Killer/Assassin

According to assassination:

Assassination is the murder of a political figure or another important individual.

Perfect match in my opinion. It was hardly a military engagement, even though Collins was ambushed and chose to defend himself. The purpose of the ambush was to assassinate Collins. As Category:Assassinated Irish politicians was left on the article, I've changed it back to assassin as I see no real reason for "killer" instead, but I'm open to discussion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur with your reasoning (although there seems to be no citation for the [assumed] purpose of the attack - perhaps any military convoy in that area at that time was liable to engagement?).

May I quote your reasoning in other articles?...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 16:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion here regarding this very subject, it would probably be best to contribute to that to see if we can thrash something out that applies to all articles. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

accroding to meda ryans book Collins had been recognised by ira soldiers passing through beal na mblath on the morning of the 22nd of august and it had been decided by senior ira officers including liam deasy to lay an ambush i think any force at war would attack a senior enemy general during the ambush (encounter or skirmish would better describe it in this case) there was in fact only 3 engineers armed with pistols joined by 2 men armed with rifles on the ira side against a much better armed free state force —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bouse23 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Who shot Collins?

Now I'm hoping someone on here will know which books the O'Neill claims come from. According to this he's the favourite suspect in "two of the last three books on Collins", but rather inconveniently it doesn't say what books. Anyone? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That page is copyrighted 1998. Last week I picked up John M Feehan's The Shooting of Michael Collins, which was originally published in June 1981, but revised in April 1982 and 1991. In the latter he states that, "since the last edition of this book a television programme by RTÉ and two books have suggested that... O'Neill was the man who shot Collins." Unfortunately, he doesn't name the books, either. However, he directly addresses and pretty much demolishes the case against O'Neill. Feehan is quite adamant that Collins was killed by a bullet from a Mauser C96, rejecting the possibility of either a ricochet or a dum-dum bullet, and seems to favour him having been killed either directly or indirectly by the British secret service as revenge for Bloody Sunday, but his reasoning as to why this would have been the case lacks credibility. Nick Cooper 11:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly sounds like a tricky (and touchy) subject. This section of the article should certainly be approached with extream care and by experts with access to good references to cover the variety of reasonable theories. Russeasby 14:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just finishing the Feehan book, and should be able to précis his general thesis, although to be honest at the moment there are a number of uncited statements of fact here that are completely contrary to what he suggests (e.g. that Collins was killed by a dum-dum bullet). Nick Cooper 18:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The "Death" section as it stands seems to my reading to very strongly imply that it was the British that killed Collins. Is this the current historical consensus? My understanding was always that it was very ambiguous as to what actually happened, with the majority consensus view being that it was probably anti-treaty IRA forces. I can't change it because I don't have access to sources and I am certainly claiming no expertise, but the section (a pretty important bit of Collins' biography) currently is uncited except for one link to a very, very ropey "Community Submitted" (i.e. not a reliable source) article on a website. Plenty of sources exist and no doubt could be worked in by those with more knowledge than me.... Badgerpatrol 13:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There is very little/no evidence that the British were responsible for Collins' death. From my reading of the 'Death' section, the mention of O'Neill's service in the British Army (which wasn't irregular as tens of thousands of Irishmen had served during World War I) and his position as a marksman are there to explain a) his background and b) how he scored a fatal shot to the head at some distance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.220.42 (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2007

Feehan hints heavily that British Intelligence was responsible, but his reasoning as to why they would have wanted to is shaky, to say the least. Nick Cooper 23:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that from the way the section is written at the moment (making specific reference to the alleged killer's service in the British Army, as well as the reference to the type of round used as being one usually associated with British-backed paramilitaries), it is suggesting that the British were responsible. The inclusion and juxtaposition of those specific facts is superfluous except if meant to present a case. I'm by no means certain that that is the historical consensus, and as mentioned above, a targeted assassination of Collins by British intelligence would seem to be counter-intuitive. In any case, the situation is at the very least ambiguous and this should aspect should be presented (and backed up with reliable sources) in the section. Badgerpatrol 01:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have edited this section quite a bit. I have never really got why there is such controversey over who shot Collins. It seems clear he was killed in an ambush by anti-treaty fighters. Why the mystery? And I don't think there is any convincing evidence that the British were involved.

First of all, why would they kill the man who was upholding the treaty? Second, in order to do so, they would have had to infilatrate a local unit of the anti-treaty IRA and Collins' convoy, bring them both together and then make sure Collins got killed in the fire-fight. Is it not much simpler to believe that things are as they appear and that Collins was killed in an mabush mounte by the anti-treaty side.

The fact that the man who fired the fatal shot (probably) was a former British soldier is of no great significance. So was Tom Barry and so was Collins right hand man Emmet Dalton, along with many other IRA men of this era. Not surprising when 259,000 Irishmen had recently served in the First World War. As for the dum dum ammunition, Ryan's book makes it clear that the ammunition was captured from the Black and Tans, not given to O'Neill by them. Jdorney 18:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

the only importance that sonny o neill was a former member of the british armed forces as the contributer above says like many men on both sides of the irish civil war was that he was that the training he got there made him an excellent marksman and about the dum-dum bullet the ira were often very short of ammunition and couldnt be fussy about where they got it he found those bullets in the workhouse in dunmanway which had been used by auxilliary cadets who left some dum-dums behind because they could have got in trouble for having them —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bouse23 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of Section "Triple Approval"

I deleted the section entitled Triple Approval as it seems irrelevant to an article on Michael Collins. It seems odd to give the minute technicalities such prominence especially considering Collins military actions during the War of Independence are relegated to the section on the Minister of Finance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cliste (talk • contribs) 17:20, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

I've reverted this pending discussion and consensus - I think it probably is too much to qualify under WP:Be bold. But I agree with Cliste on this one - the material belongs in Anglo-Irish Treaty, not a biography of Collins. 'Delete. --Red King 19:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Free State"

Have edited out some "Free State" entries. It was the provisional giovernment and National Army until late 1922 - after Collins' death - and the IFS was formally legislated on 6 December 1922 (Northern Ireland voted not to be part of it on 7th December, not when the treaty was approved in January). Also the civil war had been looming since April but Collins particularly wanted the June election out of the way before he could do anything.86.42.196.85 14:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Revolutionaries

Can somebody please add this? Thank you.--70.109.223.188 (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

He's in a sub-category - Category:Members of the Irish Republican Brotherhood which is a sub-category of Category:Irish revolutionaries. Is that ok? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Treaty Delegates

The failure to mention George Gavin Duffy and Eamonn Duggan as fellow treaty delegates is important. The piece on the treaty is quite misleading as one assumes only Arthur Griffith, Robert Barton and Michael Collins were invloved as they are the only voting delegates mentioned. Plus the context that they were mentioned in is rathar insignificant. The addresses of their respective residences in London, or wherever they may have been, doesn't add anything to the article, and doesn't aid the reader's understanding of the events Lazarus89 (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There's little need to mention either Dyffy or Duggan in this article. According to Hart, "Eamon Duggan, while officially a full-powered delegate, was seen more or less as a Collins staff member by all sides". According to Coogan, "Duffy and Dugan he [Dev] said were mere padding, chosen for their legal training; both were solicitors". I've amended the wording to reflect there were other delegates, but there's no need for everyone to be mentioned by name if they don't have articles. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. In the Irish War of Independence article, the discussion of the treaty could mention these gentleman in more detail, but it is unnecessary in the article about Collins. Erskine Childers, on the other hand, could merit a mention. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Michael collins dvd.jpg

Image:Michael collins dvd.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

good pr

was collins important role in the irish war of independence slightly over blown because he was in dublin and therefore got more press coverage signed bouse23 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bouse23 (talk

Wasn't the £10,000 bounty the British offered a big part of it? That's over $400,000 in today's money. Kauffner (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Michael Collins (Irish leader)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Some work on NPOV needed, also some cases of poor grammar, but generally good article. Tim 14:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)