Talk:Michael O'Dwyer

Bad history

This is bad history and even worse writing. The article should be rewritten by an expert.

In particular, there is no evidence anywhere that Sir Michael O'Dwyer held any meeting to plan the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. This is a canard launched by Raja Ram in his book 'Jallianwala Bagh, a Premeditated Plan', which bases its themes upon a supposition that has been widely rejected as an idea (even by Mahatmna Gandhi in 1919) and has utterly no evidence to support it. There is no evidence that O'Dwyer knew anything about the massacre until after it happened.

Bystand 16 May 2006

Category wanted on : Butchers

Most impartial people from accross the globe term Amritsar Massacre as Butchery. It is therefore, logical to create a Category called Butchers to include criminals like Michael O'Dwyer into that Category?.

Can some administrator please create the Category please?.

Thanks.

sze cavalry

Blatant breach of policy

No attempt has been made to comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Bhoeble 19:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Describing things as "cold-bloodedly butchered", a "nefarious plan" or "by nature, Michael O'Dwyer was a tyrant and dictator" is not NPOV. I've put a tag up on this page. Leithp 11:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Modern researchers at Punjab University Chandigarh conclude that the plan of Amritsar Massacre was a pre-designed plan and was formulated in the Government House, Lahore by Michael O'Dwyer and other top British bureaucrats both belonging to civil and military side. Lieutenant Col Smith was also present in this meeting (The Massacre that Ended the Raj, London, 1981, Alfared Draper). The above meeting was unofficial for understandable reasons and was headed by Michael O'Dwyer and the whole drama was unofficial and oral and it was kept as top secret for obvious reasons. It fell to the lot of Butcher Reginald Edward Harry Dyer to carry out the plan (Jallainawala Bagh Massacre--A Premaditated Plan, Punjab University, Chandigarh, 1969, p 24, Raja Ram). The main idea behind this extreme action, as Michael himself admitted, was "to teach the Punjabis (Indians) a lesson which they will never forget and to strike a TERROR throught Punjab" (A Pre-Meditated Plan of Jallianwala Bagh Massacre and Oath of Revenge, Udham Singh alias Ram Mohammad Singh Azaad, 2002, pp 133, 144, 294, Prof Sikander Singh; Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, A Premeditated Plan, Punjab University Chandigarh, 1969, p 24, Raja Ram).

Michael O'Dwyer had officially sent a telegram to General Dyer stating the action as "correct" and putting his stamp of "approval" on it. How could the British Imperialists, anxious to keep colonial their hold on Indians, convict their faithful officers who were helping them to keep their Indian colony under their subjugation?

'"to teach the Punjabis (Indians) a lesson which they will never forget and to strike a TERROR throught Punjab" -- Therefore, he could be classified as a terrorist?

It's typical of these filthy WASP revisionists to hide behind the NPOV rubbish while whitewashing various atrocities. It is not Neutral to pretend history never occured, it is not Neutral to pretend that deliberate acts of mass murder planned and executed by the filthy english were just accidents. The cowardly "neutrality" always washes blood from the hands of killers. Wikipedia is a revisionist joke.

O'Dwyer was Irish. So was Dyer. Neither, therefore, was English. Try doing your research before making racial slurs. Or best of all, don't make them at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hyderabad

Was he acting resident in Hyderabad, Sindh or in the Hyderabad state in South India? --Russ Blau (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Not neutral

This is a piece of Indian nationalist propaganda. Quoting sources for the abusive anti-British statements does not bring the article into line with Wikipedia:Neutrality. I don't believe the writers of this made any real attempt to be neutral and it needs a rewrite. Chicheley 09:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you to do your independent research and place here what you think or else believe could more objective (or else pro-British) statements here?. Bring this on record for the information of the world untill then we have to accept what's already been written by specialists and researchers on this topic. Sze cavalry01 20:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Category: Mass Murderers

One of the most critic of Caxton Hall Episod, Mr BrianSmithson has himself suggested Mass murderers category for General Dyer and Michael O’Dwyer. See below the text from BrianSmithson himself.

The problem is twofold: First, any Category:Butchers would be ambiguous, as the primary meaning of "butcher" is someone who prepares animal meat to be eaten. Secondly, we already have Category:Mass murderers, which serves the purposes you are talking about, in my opinion. — BrianSmithson 15:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC) : See Link [1].

It was then agreed that Mass Murderers category be used both for General Dyer as well as Michael O'Dwyer. So please try to respect the edits/suggestions of other Wikipedians also.

Sze cavalry01 00:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You conveniently ignore the fact that other Wikipedians - who should also be respected - disagree with appropriateness of categories such as "Mass Murderers" in this case. In particular, you cannot unilaterally announce that "it has been agreed" - because it hasn't been. If you want, we can carry a vote on that and see how it goes. My personal opinion remains that "Mass Murderers" category is for people who personally performed mass murders, not for those who gave orders that led to a large-scale killing. It even says so in the description of the category. O'Dwyer would only belong there if he personally "killed four or more people in a single incident". -- int19h 07:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem there is that the Mass Murderers category itself explicitly states that a person who commits mass murder on behalf of a state, as Dyer was doing here, should belong in Category:War criminals, and NOT Category:Mass murderers. Therefore, thats the category he should be moved to.--Jackyd101 11:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: categories applicable to article on Michael O'Dwyer

This is a dispute about what categories are applicable to the article on Michael O'Dwyer. In particular, the appropriateness of Category:Terrorists and Category:Mass murderers is disputed. 14:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• Category:Mass murderers is only supposed to be used for people who carried out the murders personally, not those who were merely giving orders. This alone is enough to disqualify O'Dwyer from it. But furthermore, its description explicitly states that "is not to be used for terrorists, or for those who carried out massacres in service of a state". O'Dwyer was Lieutenant Governor, and the orders were given by him in such capacity. The massacre was therefore "in service of the state". Category:Terrorists also states that any individuals listed therein should be "non-state actors", so it is clearly not applicable to O'Dwyer. Note also that we have Category:State terrorism on the article already, and noone is disputing its presence. -- int19h 14:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I agree with int19h. Both his reasons and conclusions convince me. Itayb 19:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

In agreement with int19h. --Jon Cates 15:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ditto --House of Scandal 05:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia:Consensus. Removing. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Sir"

When was this jackass knighted? Surely not after 1919? Speciate 06:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit^^^

This shows how poor that "knighthood" system is. Killers get knighted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.74.221.197 (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

He received his knighthoods in 1913 and 1917. Try to do some research before making comments like this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Retirement?

Where did O'Dwyer retire to? Did he receive property and titles there? What sort of life did he live there? What was his relationship with his family back in Ireland? Did he ever return? 188.141.10.11 (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

adding sir before his name is not right.

Sir must not be used for a killer. he killed more than 1500 innocent people so i don't think sir is used before his name GoiGarg (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

As is stated above, he received his knighthoods in 1913 and 1917. Despite whatever his actions may have been and whether you think they're right or not, it is correct to prefix "Sir" before O'Dwyer's name.— Iambic Pentameter _{(talk / contribs)} 20:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2021

Michael o dwyer is a war criminal who killed 100s of indians at jalianwalabagh. The title sir should be removed from this page. Giving him the sir name is similar to saying hitler protected jews. 2607:FEA8:F49F:A990:81FE:9EEE:68E0:FBDA (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: see above Cannolis (talk) 05:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I want to remove the sir in front of the name Michael O'Dwye

59.97.82.251 (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: see above Cannolis (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Add a information in bio data

Mixhael O'Dwyer He is also criminal 2409:4042:2E0D:82B3:0:0:7288:340E (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Killer

He is killer remove "sir" from his name 103.206.137.19 (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Killer bosdk

Killer 103.206.137.19 (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Nationality

He was an ethnically Irish person born to two Irish parents and raised in Ireland. In what sense was he "British" "of Irish descent"? I am correcting his nationality to Irish. MaineCrab (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)