Talk:Crossbarry ambush

Stubs

Note to all: I am prefectly aware that the battle took place in the what is now the Republic of Ireland, but if it involves the Britsh Army, it is also a Britsh battle. Cheers V. Joe 23:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesus, Joe. It was up about 10 seconds and you colonise it. You're on the ball. P.S. I've just glanced at the Battles of Lexington and Concord, Battle of Bunker Hill and Battle of Cowpens- shall I go on?- and surprise, surprise you are not sticking "British battle" on those. Could you explain how, by your above logic, they are not worthy of being termed "British battles"? Thanks. El Gringo 23:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If 30 soldiers were killed at Crossbarry there will be records of their names, ranks, numbers and graves. I have, so far, found just ten names, including Capt G.T.Hotblack, who died later of wounds. Stanley c jenkins (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

IRA Victory?

How is this an IRA victory? 22:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Weggie (talk • contribs)

In the sense that escaped from a much larger force and inflicted greater casualties than they sustained. Still, I'm going to make the wording clearer.

Jdorney 08:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not a victory, it's a retreat.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) That is absolutely pathetic. There is no continuity (the number of IRA members changes), no details and only two sources, and from the general one-sidedness of the article it leads me to believe that your "source" by Michael Hopkinson is really only for show and that you have relied soley on Tom Barry's account. That is an obvious folly.

"The IRA claimed that over thirty British soldiers were killed in the action. The British admitted just ten killed and three wounded."

Where did you get that from?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

The source is Micheal Hopkinson's Irish War of Independence, as detailed in the reference. You realise that you can edit the article with any information you may have, if you think its inaccurate? I can assure you that in writing this article I have tried to be as factual as possible with the sources I have. Jdorney 13:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In his book "A short History of the Irish Revolution", Richard Killeen writes that, "the West Cork No 3 Brigade of the IRA took on more than a thousand troops of the Essex and Hampshire regiments, inflicting 86 casualties - including 39 dead- for the loss of three dead and four wounded". This seems like an IRA victory. Millbanks 16:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Percival

Note the reference to "Major Percival" in the main entry. He was Arthur Percival, one of the most hated commanders of the British Auxiliaries. He survived three IRA attacks and lived long enough to have the honour of surrendering Singapore to the Japanese in 1942. Millbanks 16:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the Singapore story irrelevant or just unproven? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, surrendered. Made no line of defence for ‘morale’ of population reasons. He outnumbered the Japanese by at least 2 to 1.

and here he was facing Tom Barry!!! He had no show. 203.17.235.23 (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

recent wording changes

I've a problem with of the recent wording changes, made by Superfopp, specificially:

1.The intro, *Crossbarry is not a village, it's a crossroads.

• 20 kilometres south of cork city is a relevant detail
• a battle is a very large military engagement, Crossbarry was not this, it was a skirmish, hence "engagement" is better.

The next section is ok, I'd prefer "ascertain" to "discover" but I don't mind.

2.Combat section; lots of problems here. My preference would be to revert the whole thing.

• Barry's calculation" v "Barry reckoned", "reckoned" is informal language and not suitable for an elcyclopedia article.
• "sustained" v "withstand", difference in meaning. The problem was ammunition, so they couldn't sustain ie keep up a fight all day. "Withstand" means that they couldn't physically or morally fight all day. Doesn't mean the same thing.
• "column" v "unit", more precise - this was the langauge they used. ALso, repeated use of "unit" makes tedious reading.
• "observed" v "saw", saw means only to see, observed means saw and made a judgment
• deletion of "taking the chance to get away" - pretty important tactical consideration.
• "Rendevous" v "meeting", a rendevous is a pre planned military meeting, so more precise.
• "combats" v "exchanges", combats is more precise, exchanges could mean exchanges of words, or anything.

I'm going to make these changes. Jdorney (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

I have carried out an assessment of this article for the Military History project. I have no knowledge of the subject, so cannot comment on content, although it seems reasonably comprehensive. I have assessed the article, however, as a Start class article (please note that the project doesn't currently use C class). The reason it is not a B class article is that it does not quite meet the project's referencing requirements, which are that each paragraph requires at least one in line citation. If these could be added in, it would probably be up to B class standard. A couple of other improvements might be adding the full bibliographic details to the Sources (e.g. year, publisher, location, isbn, etc.), which could then be formatted with the {{citebook}} template (the template is not a requirement either, though). Also an image would help improve the article (although not a B class requirement). Other than that, the article looks in fairly good shape. (I made a few small tweaks though, but mainly only WP:MOS changes). When you feel that the article is ready for reassessment, please add it to the list at WP:MHA. Anyway, good work. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)