Jump to content

Talk:Thomas Francis Meagher

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconIrish republicanism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish republicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish republicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish republicanismIrish Republicanism articles
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Clean-up & citations

[edit]

I'd like get this article to WP:Good Article. Over the past couple months I have been updating this article with in-line citations. I have also tagged a number of items with "citation needed," especially in the "Death & disappearance" section. My plan (in a week or two) is to remove any statements that currently have a "citation needed" tag next to it, and possibly consolidate the "death" and "legacy" sections, then seek a peer review or copyedit.

If there are sources for some of the items that I have tagged, I will be more than happy to add the inline cites if you point me in the right direction. If there are any other issues with the article from those familiar with the subject, this might be a good place to bring them up. Thanks, Mitico (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some clean-up

[edit]

I just work briefly on the page, mostly to the infobox to make it more like other ACW articles. Expansion is needed on his Civil War career (shocked to see the accusation of drunkenness at Sharpsburg and wounding there not mentioned!). I can provide the ranks and their dates no problem, but more info is needed as to his actual participation in the fights. Kresock (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded to include at least some detail for the battles he participated in & the items mentioned above. Is there anything still missing regarding the Civil War? Thanks! -Mitico (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better and more complete now. I you want, I can insert with cites his militia & army ranks at appropriate spots in the text. Might be considered over doing it, but most of the other Union general pages include this info. Kresock (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate consistency. For Meagher, wouldn't his ranks just be colonel, bevet, & brid. gen? Doesn't seem like it would be over doing it - I don't think. So if you have this information handy (& by the sounds of it you are much more familiar than I) I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Mitico (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! Kresock (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One minor minor thing. Is there any reason that the pronunciation of the name is in the family section, rather at the very top of the article when his name is first mentioned? That seems more intuitive, but if there is a reason not to, feel free to ignore this.Buirechain (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I moved to the lead and used the IPA format. Mitico (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More work

[edit]

Added rank info & dates, and some other adjustments. I put in the {{{Fact}}} near the bit about Mitchel because at first glance it could read as Original Research. I could not find out the nature of his injuries at First Bull Run, so this can be added later. I still have two major concerns with the Civil War section:

  • Regarding the split over slavery, here is an link to google books: [1]
Let me know if you think this is sufficient. Mitico (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Kresock (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In ACW articles we use the National Park Service names for the battles, excepting First Bull Run/Manassas, but here Seven Pines is called Fair Oaks in the text. I corrected the links to avoid redirects, and assume this wording is due to the visible caption on the Fair Oaks pic, correct?
  • Yes, I had actually changed it from how you have it now. I'd like the image & text to match without much explantion - so hopefully the way it is piped now is okay. Mitico (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My source states he held two Western Theater commands throughout 1864 and into 1865, and not resigning until May 15, 1865. This does not jive with the text or the infobox, and I would like to know how you would like to deal with this.

I'll do the rewrite of these sections if you want. Kresock (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh I see that in the Civil War High Commands. The Army of Ohio is not mentioned in a number of my sources, if you'd like to add that detail that would be great and I'll look to see if I can expand if needed. Thanks. Mitico (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll also note that this reference is the first time I had seen his death attributed to a "drinking party." Though drinking is frequently attributed, just never quite in this way. Interesting. Mitico (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put in his western service with dates and cited it. Also:

  • I also combined a few parts of the section and a very short quote together for appearance and flow. Change it back if you hate it now, but I thought the part about raising the company in NY should be closer to the quote for the ad concerning it.
  • Do we have anything on his actual participation at Chancellorsville. It just states he was there, not saying he was engaged or how much. His command was the 2nd Brigade, 1st Division of Couch's II Corps, and the corps fought McLaws' men in the early hours on May 3 and damn near everybody else on May 4. Beyond that I cannot expand. Kresock (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will follow up, but I think his participation was limited in Chancellorsville. Due to limited troops, recovering from the injury and (IMO) being po'd about not being able to further recruit he stayed on the "sidelines." Mitico (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Meagher and the Irish Brigade did engage in Chancellorsville, but the reports seems mixed. Some say he was wounded, Meagher's report conflicts with Hancock's regarding the brigades actions, subsequently Meagher resigned.[2] Interestingly, Meagher only took command of the brigade on April 27, after recovery from his injuries, just three days prior to Chancellorsville.Mitico (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then I'd add the bit about taking command three days prior and put in something like "lightly engaged" or so, and for now leave out the possible wounding/Handcock stuff until more in known. Perhaps the OR's can help? Kresock (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added his taking command & engagement as suggested. Just to be clear, Meagher was not wounded at Chancellorsville, but I was stating that to illustrate how much the reports vary. All-in-all, I think stating that he saw limited action is proper, especially compared to the other battles. Let me know if you have any other observations regarding the article. I am going to nominate for GA now. I appreciate your expertise and your help improving this article. Mitico (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and feel free to ask anytime. Kresock (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more work on his Irish significance

[edit]

I think while there are a lot of people here bringing his US connection up to a good standard, his significance to the Irish struggle against Britain has been neglected.. the real significance of his life seems to me that he was an Irish patriot who was transported, fought in a foreign country as part of a greater cause he believed in, and died young, before he or we could know what he would do next. I feel his life needs to be interpreted in terms of his Irish origins and causes - remember that he did not leave home voluntarily, he was an exile. Rcbutcher (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify a little: Do you think the Young Ireland section needs expansion? Or is your concern that the remainder of the article does not reflect back enough to Irish concerns? Mitico (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The latter : I feel that everything he did, including his Civil War service, needs to be interpredted in light of his dispute with Britain over Ireland. I.e. I feel he was an Irish rebel first, politician second, and US soldier third. The article needs to be balanced and not be dominated by his Civil War involvement, which in the big picture was of minor importance. On re-reading the article I think it's getting there.Rcbutcher (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated some of the information on the early life section (up to the image you uploaded), and created a page on wikiquote. I will expand the rest of the section over the coming days, likewise the wikiquote and wikisource links. If you would like me to expand more on any aspect, please let me know? --Domer48'fenian' 19:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I think I need un-nominate this for GA now. There are some issues that any reviewer will note (below), and especially now with article stability. I'm a little busy now, so I don't think I'll be able fix in the next day or two. Anyway, issues I think exist now:
  1. The new prose is at times rambling, & will need to work to tighten.
  2. Spelling - I ensured the rest of the article used American english spelling. I liked to continue using American english, unless there are objections. If consensus is to use british spelling can someone make those changes throughout the entire article because I am not familiar and would most likely do an awful job.
  3. Regarding the "brogue" - I have a source that states that TFM took pride in retaining his irish brogue while at stonyhurst, despite strong attempts to change it. Are you sure about your source on this one?
  4. Regarding sources, I'll clean up and make consistent with the others. Can you verify that the applicable page numbers are presented. Seems like a lot of referencing to page IV (preface) & page 10 of the Lyons book. I'm not saying its not right, but seems odd - so jst a quick confirm would be nice.
  5. Regarding, the Lyons book - is it the same one that I have linked to google books in the general references section? If so, I'll refer to it, instead of a unique book.
  6. The "Books by" & "Additional reading" - are these sections necessary - with that much detail? As noted above, on June 16, I removed much of these list because (IMO) it cluttered the article. Some of the books (and probably the truly relevant ones) are used -or should be used - as references in this article. On the Young Ireland & Irish Confederation articles, sure, but I don't think these lists are helpful to the biography pages that they are widely attached, including this one. Especially since this article now exceeds some of the technical issues raised at Wikipedia:Article size.
  7. I will also focus on adding a paragraph "Arrival" section (and maybe a final sentence in the Legacy section) to discuss TFM's contribution to irish concerns while in the US, which will hopefully address RCbutcher's observations
I wish we could have done some of this prior to the peer review & nominating for GA, but thats just how collaboration works. GA is still my goal, and attainable - so hopefully we can work together patch up a few things then re-nominate. Mitico (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On points 1 & 2: On prose (not my strong point I admit), I welcome suggestions. Like you, point 2 would be a problem also for me, but agreement on English / American should not be. I had a small go on the wording.
  • On point 3: I include a quote from the from the book cited:

“Regarding Trinity College as anti-Irish and anti- Catholic, his father sent him to Clongowes and Stonyhurst for his education. In the first institution he was bred in ignorance of his country and all that related to it—in the second his preceptors, with some success, laboured to overcome what was termed his “ horrible Irish brogue,” and succeeded in sending him back to his own country with an Anglo-Irish accent which grated on the ears of his countrymen when he addressed them from the tribune, until the eloquence and native fire of the orator swept the gift of the English school from their jarred consciousness.” Pg. iv - v

In addition, on a cursory look through some books, I have three sources with reference to his English accent. One by Duffy, Meagher’s contemporary and two secondary sources. If you wish to have them cited, I’m happy to oblige. What source out of interest, are you citing, I may just have it?

To balance it out we could include something from “until the eloquence and native fire of the orator swept the gift of the English school from their jarred consciousness”?

  • On point 4 & 5 together: Yes page numbers are correct. On the Griffith’s book, the Preface is actually an autobiography of Meagher, and on the Lyons book, yes it is the same book, only difference being my copy is an original, and contains a Dedication by W. F. Lyons to “The Irish Soldier Everywhere.” Dated New York, December, 1869. I understand there is also another book by Lyons titled "Meagher, Memoir of Thomas Francis," which I have yet to get. I've had a go at sorting the references, and added the books to the "General" list.
  • On point 6: I have hidden the book list, so that is not really a problem. Since we wish to inform the reader as much as possible, it can only be seen as a tool in that respect to the broad nature of the movement which Meagher was so much apart. Meagher is mentioned in almost each and every one, covering every aspect of his life.

Early life

[edit]

Hi, I have a question, what is the point of including his father's feelings towards Trinity College? Also if his father did regard it as anti Catholic etc. why was he sent to Clongowes (Catholic granted,) but seems to have failed to educate him about his country ("bred in ignorance of his country") and then an English school which seemed to want to Anglizise (horrible Irish brogue etc) him further? Reading the article it just seems confusing to me. In my opinion the Trinity part could be simply left out as it seems set a confusing tone for the paragraph. As an aside Trinity did also produce half a century earlier Wolfe Tone a legend in Irish Nationalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.208.91 (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why was he sent to Clongowes? Because it was a Catholic school, Trinity being anti Catholic. Was he a nationalist leaving Clongowes? No, he was in ignorance of his country. Was he a nationalist leaving college in England? No, English schools seemed to want to Anglizise him. When did he become a Nationalist? After he arrived in Dublin and came in contact with both the Repeal Ass and the Nation. So he went from not having a clue about his country or nationality to becoming one of the leading nationalists of his time. He became the very opposite of everything he was educated to be, so I can understand your confusion. Is that not what makes his early life so interesting? --Domer48'fenian' 21:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed yes ! These are the sorts of things that a biographical article needs to cover. The man seems to have been driven by passion rather than just cold intellect. So where his feeling came from is important. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the IP editor has a point regarding leading off with Trinity comments. It doesn't seem all that relevant. Especially when you consider that Trinity was a historically protestant college that would not even allow Catholics to attend - I believe this was even in Sr's lifespan. I have tried to re-word emphasizing that he attended Catholic schools. Domer, I believe above-explanation was clearer than the description in the article space about why this event in his early years were important. I have tried to incorporate that. I have also attempted to describe why the brogue is important. Question: is "which grated on the ears of his countrymen" a quote from somewhere? If not, than I think there is better wording for grated on the ears needed. Let me know what you think. I am still very busy in real life, so I may not be too responsive. Mitico (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How Meagher’s father felt is very relevant. Trinity at this time was no longer a Protestant institution, but it was still anti-Catholic. Catholics did send their sons there, but Meagher’s father would not. I think the source you cited at the end of the section Bruce 2006, p 55 would support the inclusion of his fathers views as having relevance (apples not falling far from the tree) as to the effect on his son.

This addition however, is not reflected by they source I used. Meagher, who considered the brogue as a symbol of Irish heritage, would soon overcome his acquired accent. Ua Cellaigh pg 152-3 Despite his formal education lacking in Irish studies and even attempts to overcome native country's brogue, Meagher would become a key figures in Irish nationalism. Bruce 2006, p 55

Meagher never lost his acquired accent; it was his eloquence which won over his audience.

  • “To the common eye, indeed, the new recruit was a dandified youngster, with a languid air and mincing accent obviously derived from an English education; but this was a vulgar error. Nature had made him a great orator, and training had made him an accomplished gentleman. Charles Gavin Duffy, Four Years of Irish History 1845-1849 pg. 10
  • “He addressed the meeting on one of the passing topics of the day; something in his manner savouring of affectation, something in the semi-Saxon lisp that struggled through his low-toned utterances, some thing in the total lack of suitable gesture, gave his listeners at the outset an unfavourable impression of the young speaker. He was boyish and, some did not scruple to hint conceited; he had too much of the fine gentleman about his appearance, and too little of the native brogue and stirring declamation to which his listeners had been accustomed.” Ua Cellaigh pg 152-3
  • John Mitchel tells in the columns of his Irish Citizen, thus: “It is difficult now, for those who did not know Davis, to understand and appreciate the influence which that most puissant and imperial character exerted upon the young Irishmen of his day. Meagher had never known him personally, but had been inspired, possessed by him. In speaking of Davis, his Lancashire accent seemed to subside; and I could perceive, under the factitious intonations of Cockaigne, the genuine roll of the melodious Munster tongue. We became friends that evening.” Lyons pg 11
  • “In that year he had gone Dublin for the purpose of studying for the Bar. Conciliation Hall had, however, a greater attraction for him than the Four Courts, and despite his English accent and a somewhat affected manner, he soon became a popular figure in Burgh Quay. These defects were forgotten in the eloquence of the orator who had no compare in Conciliation Hall…” O’Sullivan pg. 193

I intended to expand the early life section, using a number of sources. Duffy's is somewhat critical of Meagher and should be included though I would suggest caution. This will include his fathers views and the effect on young Meagher. The last two lines will have to be changed to reflect what the sources actually say I think?--Domer48'fenian' 21:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I think the Trinity parts illustrate that Meagher's father was a source of his Irish nationalism, contrasting to his education. My issue may be that it just seems like a dig at Trinity. Maybe there is a more direct way to state the point of Snr's effect.
Content wise I think this section is good, maybe some rewording on:
  1. "which grated on the ears of his countrymen" Per above, maybe something more subtle like: "which left an unfavorable impression upon his countrymen"
  2. "defects forgotten in the eloquence of the orator he would soon become a popular speaker who would have no compare in Conciliation Hall." This seems very close to what is written above from O'Sullivan and Conciliation Hall makes it first reference here, but is not explained.
a) How about: "Despite his English accent and a "somewhat affected manner", his countrymen would soon forget his English idiosyncrasies due to his eloquence as an orator. He would soon become the most popular speaker in Conciliation Hall, the meeting place of Irish Repeal Association.
b) or,"Despite his English accent and a "somewhat affected manner", his eloquence as an orator would soon lead his countrymen to forget his English idiosyncrasies. Meagher bacame a popular speaker "who had no compare" in Conciliation Hall, the meeting place of Irish Repeal Association.
Thanks, Mitico (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue with Trinity; there is this quote from Duffy, which may help, though how Ireland was at this time and how it was governed is a fact of life. All of which influenced Meagher.

“He [Meagher] had not had the advantage of university training; his father shared with many Catholic fathers a profound distrust of the only university in Ireland [Trinity]— an institution which tempted Catholic students to apostasy by reserving its prizes for apostates” Duffy, FYIH, pg. 8

I think I'll add the "only university in Ireland." Provides nice perspective. Hopefully settling the Trinity issue. Mitico (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise the effect of his manner, and accent on his contemporaries, and their first impressions of him. These characteristics they described as “defects.” I consider the term “grating” as aptly descriptive when we review the above quotations, likewise, we could attribute the term to the author, though in my opinion the quotes mentioned above support its inclusion.

The above quotes mention: "unfavorable impression" "defects" "somewhat affected manner" a "lisp". One mentions "mincing". While mincing & grating are similar, the use of this term over the others feels does not reflect the consensus of sources (which is much more forgiving then "grating"), in my opinion. I'd still like to tone it down a bit. Mitico (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a comparable note, the following sentences caught my attention; “Meagher was injured when he fell off his horse. There were reports that Meagher had been drunk, causing the fall.” ref name=bruce120 Bruce 2006, p 120, and in the same paragraph, “This was not the first time that Meagher faced this accusation, as it was reported that he was drunk at the First Battle of Bull Run." Bruce 2006, p 89 The high number of casualties, and the rumours of being drunk on the battlefield, lead to increased criticism of Meagher's command ability.” ref name=bruce120. Now I have no real problem with all this, after all we have the official report included “However, official reports from Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan indicated that Meagher's horse had been shot.” Wylie 2007, p 165, so we know who the official report is attributable too. I’d simply like to know were the “reports” “rumours” and “accusations” of drunkenness came from, epically when it is yet again mentioned in the “Disappearance and legacy” section “Some state that he had been drinking, and simply fell overboard.” Who are the “some”? Would the “some” and the source of the “rumours” and “accusations” include Mr Russell of the London Times, and if so, should this also be included? We know from reading Lyons pg. 20 that they were described as an "utter falsity." I simply raise these points in passing, as we have not reached those sections yet. I would not consider their inclusion as being a dig at Meagher’s character, as we will address them later, in detail.

Regarding the accusations of drunkedness, in fact the First Bull Run reports were largely reported by Russell (an anti-Irish & anti-Union writer). These claims were also supported by a confederate Lt. Connolly. Back in New York, a wife of a judge (Maria Daly) was spreading these accusations as well. I think it would be fair to throw the word "falsely" in regarding the Bull Run claims and leave it at that. Later claims at Antietem are more numerous: namely a Colonel David Hunter, but also by a number of soldiers & reporters named Grey, Hitchcock, Strother, and Reid. (Wylie p 165-167). So the Antietem claims were not isolated to detractors and later put in doubt by the McClellan report. Other statements & accusations appear, but I do not think they are noteworthy enough for inclusion. His death is surrounded by a lot of "some say" innuendo (b/c nobody knows for sure), but drinking is a common theme (to what extent, it varies). - Mitico.

Dispite this we are making progress--Domer48'fenian' 19:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Meagher and nationalism generally: From Christine Kinealy's "Repeal and Revolution. Ireland 1848. "....0n 17 March 1848, Meagher and some other leading Confederates shared a platform with Chartists in Manchester and Oldham. Their comments were revealing, in light of the Repeal movement's earlier antipathy to democracy, demonstrating how much the [1848] French revolution had radicalised politics in Ireland and in Britain. They also demonstrated that a new alliance was being forged, which cut across previous antagonisms. When a leading Confederate, Michael Doheny, appeared alongside Feargus O'Connor at Oldham Edge, he proclaimed himself to be . 'an Irish Chartist'. More tellingly, Meagher admitted to the 8,000 people who were gathered in the Free Trade Hall in Manchester that he had previously been wrong in his political stances. stating:

"We have confused the English government with the English people … The disenfranchised millions have been held responsible for the privileged hundreds ... We retract every word that galled your manly pride, and here, in the name of the Irish people, we claim an alliance with democracy in England … I do not disguise my true sentiments, I renounce my false ones … the revolution of Paris has made me a democrat." (page 148) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PV Nevin (talk • contribs) 11:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Family

[edit]

"Born in No. 19, The Mall, Waterford City, Ireland, his father, Thomas Meagher (1796–1874), was a wealthy retired merchant, who was twice Mayor of the City, which he also represented in Parliament from August, 1847 to March, 1857"

Question: Was Meagher's father born in No. 19, The Mall? If so, I think we should start the paragraph mentioning the subject of the article (Almost like a "lead sentence" for the section.), then his father, then his grandfather. Since the three are all Thomas Meagher, special attention to detail is needed here. Mitico (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an attempt at clarity, let me know what you think? --Domer48'fenian' 19:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think I am with you now. Having never been to Waterford, I assume "No. 19, The Mall" would mean something to someone who has been there? Looking good so far. Mitico (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that it is now the "Granville Hotel" formerly the "Commin's Hotel" [3]

Books by & additional reading

[edit]

I think there are two options with this list. 1) Keep it as it is & when we are "complete" delete the items that have been used as a reference in the article, or 2) incorporate the entire list into the "Books by Young Irelanders" template.

Option 2) would be my preference, with an additional biography section on Meagher? Just a suggestion. --Domer48'fenian' 20:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Instead of using == headers at additional reading a ;(semicolon) just prior to the word may be used to separate these sections. (For an example, see the general references.) The advantage of this would be that the "Additional reading" section will not show up in the Table of Contents. Mitico (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats sorted, got it on second attempt.--Domer48'fenian' 20:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  1. I switched the author name on the Ua Cellaigh book, so that the in-line cites would agree to the first name list, instead of Sullivan. This reversal may be incorrect, in which case I think we should undo my change, then change all the Ua Cellaigh cites to Sullivan.
  2. What does ref #21 (currently) reference to:1843 the “Repeal year” according to Daniel O’Connell? Is this to a book, or informational footnote?

Mitico (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its an information footnote. It could possibly be expanded or expanded in the article. 1843 was the hight of the Repeal Association campaign, O'Connell predicting it to be the Repeal year and Meagher's return coincided with all this activity and excitement. --Domer48'fenian' 20:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is a good article!

[edit]

I notice that all of the sponsoring groups for this article have it listed as "B" class. Have these been revised recently? This is a damn good article on a fascinating subject (I had no idea of the level of involvement of the Irish in the American Civil War!).

Given my limited knowledge of article grading standards, does this still qualify as a "B" class? I think there is some excellent DYK potential for this article, at the very least.

Vulture19 (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Body recovered?

[edit]

The section https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Cardiff_Giant states

"In 1899 a petrified man found in Fort Benton, Montana was "identified" as U.S. Civil War General Thomas Francis Meagher. Meagher had drowned in the Missouri River two years previously. The petrified man was transported to New York for exhibition."

Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.222.100 (talk) 10:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a great Montana legend. The "petrified man" was found in 1897, Meaghar drowned in 1867, so the "two years" bit is wrong right off the bat. The thing was displayed as a sort of carnival sideshow novelty for years and has since been lost, so no way to determine truth or untruth. See [4] and [5]. I updated the Cardiff Giant article. Don't know if it's worth adding this to the article here, I find it an amusing tale, but would like to see consensus of other editors first. Montanabw(talk) 19:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thomas Francis Meagher. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Thomas Francis Meagher. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Francis_Meagher&oldid=1255446455"