# Talk:Erskine Childers (author)

I have classified this article as a start due to its level of organisation and detail. Capitalistroadster 06:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Changed DSO to DSC - I've seen this mistake elsewhere. Removed "Soon Childers was regarded as a traitor not only by the British, but by the pro-Treaty Free State government in Dublin, which was under increasing pressure from Winston Churchill and the British government to take violent reprisal measures against the anti-treaty forces and their leaders." as the civil war had started, so pretty obvious.Red Hurley (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

On the Main page, 23-24th of November, the pistol Childers was carrying when he was arrested was described as a revolver, where as in the article it is described as a small caliber automatic pistol. Clearly, they cannot both be correct. Handschuh-talk to me 02:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The weapon was presented to the Defence Forces Museum in October 1995 and photographs appeared in the press.  It's a pistol. Now cited in article.--Old Moonraker (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Adhering to the Wikipedia naming convention would have this article named "Erskine Childers", with the full name as a redirect page and given in the lead paragraph. I'm inclined to make the change, subject to other editors' thoughts. --Old Moonraker (talk) 23:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No. He is generally known by all three names. Kittybrewster  ☎ 23:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of The Riddle of the Sands, where it's "Erskine Childers" only. This is what he is most famous for and therefore this is the name that best fits the naming convention. This isn't plain at the moment; in fact the novel isn't even in the lead paragraph. However if the current name stands (and there are too many pointless changes on WP already) it wouldn't be difficult to make the point: something like: as "Erskine Childers" he was the author of... would cover it.  --Old Moonraker (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Per Kittybrewster, I think the current name most completely meets COMMONNAME. Though no reason not to mention "pen name" elsewhere. Guliolopez (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I confess that I hadn't considered this from the Irish point of view when I made the suggestion, only thinking of it after Kittybrewster's the first post in reply. "REC" is obviously valid there, to distinguish him from President Erskine Childers, but "EC" is probably the common name from Wikipedia's worldwide reach and perspective. However, I sought other editors' views and if they continue along the lines already posted I'll be tweaking the text instead.--Old Moonraker (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I am British - not Irish. Kittybrewster  ☎ 19:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm dropping the suggestion: expanded "Erskine" in the lead paragraph instead. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
See WP:LEADCITE regarding the unfortunate necessity of having these unsightly refs in the lead paragraph if it contains "material that is challenged". --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A recent edit duplicated some material, already included, regarding the Irish Convention. I've removed it, but that's not to say that the topic couldn't be expanded. I also need to get on with the  Anglo-Irish Treaty, where Childers was also secretary, this time on the "other" side. This is an important episode and similarly needs to be covered in more detail. It's gradually rising to the top of my "to do pile", unless someone else has the inclination. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The article on Mary Childers give the year of her death as 1974, while this article gives it as 1964. It cannot be that both are correct. Snezzy (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, with acknowledgement to you. Good catch. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There was not one incident which was responsible for Childers's conversion from loyal supporter of the British Empire to extreme Irish nationalist: a nationalist so intemperate that his opposition to compromise is sometimes credited with bringing about the Irish Civil War
This sentence is loaded with pov. First off Childers was a republican, secondly the use of the adjective 'extreme' is fatous, uneccessary and pov. The use of the adjective 'intemperate' is also pov and the idea that childers was in any way personally responisble for the civil war is actually civil war propaganda designed to justify his execution. It is unseemly in an encyclopedia. I'm editing this to something more sensible.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.102.222 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC) 

"Extreme" is in the refs. If it's in the refs, from a definitive source, it's difficult to condemn it as WP:NPOV. A further reference for "extreme" added.
The article doesn't state that Childers was responsible for the civil war: it says that people "credit" him with this. That's a very big difference, and totally encyclopaedic.
The suggestion that Childers was blamed for the war as propaganda to justify his execution is interesting and worthy of inclusion in the article, if a reliable source can be found. Note, however, that one of the sources quoted is Childers himself, writing in 1921, which tends to diminish the force of this argument. The extent of the propaganda, both by Childers and about Childers, could certainly do with more examination in the article.
--Old Moonraker (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Afterthought re the "first off" contention, above: Childers segued from British Empire loyalist via Irish nationalist to Irish Republican. If, in the context of this sentence, "Republican" is a better fit for his final mindset, then that's a worthwhile change. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
who and, indeed why, they 'credit' him needs to be contextualised. The article doesn't do that. If indeed such contextualisation was done it would show clearly that it was only certain people on a certain side of the civil war divide that credited him. Any reference to this 'crediting' in an article on his life would only be relevant because of this fact. As it stands the sentence is clearly pov as it implies that this crediting' is somehow more wide spread than it is.  The use of the adjective 'intemperate' is unnecessary and pov.
After his 'conversion' to republicanism Childers aims remained (until this death) the basic nationalist aim of a Nation state covering what was considered the national territory. On any neutral scale this is not extreme but the basic precpets of being a nationalist. It is only from the point of view of one side of the civil war that this appears 'extreme'. References that seem to employ emotional and point of view language do not make the point any less pov.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.103.113 (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The statement from Griffiths is already contextualised: he believed that Childers's refusal to compromise at the July 1921 home rule negotiations would start a civil war in Ireland.  The sources for this don't indicate that this is a widespread assessment and the article already reflects this by qualifying the statement as "sometimes" credited. Childers was an extremist in the context of "more extreme than most members of Sinn Fein". I don't accept that the references are "emotional"  and "point of view": they are from the two definitive biographies of Childers (one author selected for the task by Childers's son), and an academic publication. However, this should not be the last word: the other points you mention, if supported by quality sources, need to be inserted as alternative views. It would be wrong to delete the strongly sourced information already here but it's perfectly in order (in fact it's necessary, to achieve balance) to include any different viewpoints that satisfy the WP:RS criteria. As the existing footnotes are making use of quotes, the new citations should if possible  do the same. Your earlier point about propaganda would also be a welcome addition. --Old Moonraker (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I replaced this pov word 'extreme' with 'diehard'. The fact that the author does not refer to his support for the British Empire, an empire which claimed 25% of this entire planet, as "extreme" says more than enough about that author's politics. 86.44.61.61 (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
The reference now includes the quotation and context for "extreme": there's no latitude for changing the material away from the reference. It's a synthesis, which isn't allowed. Once again: please by all means add other reliable sources with alternative interpretations (or, if you prefer, alternative "politics"), but don't just add your own interpretation without anything to back it up.--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Word choice, belatedly: "credited" changed to "blamed", as suggested above. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors. I have just read this article and wanted to thank those of you who have clearly worked so hard to create a scholarly and well arranged piece. I have no specialist knowledge on the man or the period but I was taken aback by one small section, which I now see has been the subject of extensive discussion on this Talk Page.The section is at the start of the ‘Conversion’ section and currently reads: 'There was no single incident which was responsible for Childers's conversion from loyal supporter of the British Empire to extreme Irish nationalist: a nationalist so intemperate that his opposition to compromise is sometimes blamed for bringing about the Irish Civil War. Rather, there was a gradual awareness, later turning into a fanatical obsession.'  I wanted, politely, to suggest as a ‘naïve ordinary reader’ the terms ‘extreme’, ‘intemperate’ and ‘fanatical’ seemed unencyclopedic to me and risk detracting from the otherwise scholarly and balanced tone of the article. Unhelpfully, I have no suggestions to make as to how this should be re-worded but would encourage those of you who have crafted such a good article to see if you can find a better choice of words. jb3ddd   —Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC) 

Has anyone ever analysed how, within a year, Childers came from signing the Treaty to wanting to kill those who were to implement it? And to follow that up with an invasion of Northern Ireland that would start a civil war there? This would involve the deaths of thousands.78.16.80.67 (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I've checked the links complained of by User:WildBot, but they all seem to work. That's not to say that better targets couldn't be found. Any oversight and suggestions from other contributors on this? --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

We have "Childers smuggled in some guns "but" he was executed by the Free State government (my clumsy paraphrase and added emphasis). This possibly implies some presupposition; anyone mind if I make this an "and" instead ? Italics and WL for Asgard, at the same time. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead. It makes more sense. RashersTierney (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I've had second thoughts about this: "...was an Irish nationalist...but was executed by the authorities of the nascent Irish Free State" makes perfect sense, so I've just put the intervening phrase in brackets to make the antithesis more obvious. Any better? --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Surely anyone on 'the other side' would also be correctly described as a 'nationalist', and Childers was was far from alone in being executed by the IFS. The 'but' implies a point-of-view 'irony'. RashersTierney (talk) 10:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
OK: my "first thoughts" prevail again. Getting on with it. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that, with the recent improvements  to his period as a TD, this article is within sight of WP:GA status. If there's any support, I'll submit it. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Trim the fat and you have my support in getting this article ready for submission. RashersTierney (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I can see one or two bits that need a trim, but I've been editing the page for too long to do this objectively. I'm just trying to remember the name of the famous author who said, of revising his/her own work, identify the bits you really like, and get rid of them first! --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Afterthought: I see from a quick look at the recent page history that the necessary trimming won't be achieved without some dissent. As can be seen from "Elgin Committee", lower down, I do not accept, for example, the relevance of this particular material.--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
That should be the first to go. I've tried, but been reverted with an ES implying that this had been settled at the TP. It seems rather that the poster is out of step. RashersTierney (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The ES made no such implication, merely that a discussion had been started, and that a wholesale and aggressive deletion of material was not desirable. The subject of the article is Erskine Childers, not the aspects of Erskine Childers' life which you happen to find interesting. He was a rounded human being who spent the better part of a decade of his life working on this stuff and was a minor celebrity for it long before he became famous as an Irish Nationalist - a few paras in the course of a lengthy article is not unreasonable. It was discussed in the article long before I got involved and what the article originally said on the topic was garbage (to quote what I've written below "Childers' views on the obsolescence of cavalry charges were clearly correct and the British Army refused to accept them because it would have meant admitting they were wrong - and cited as a source a 1970s book"). Trimming to keep the article directly relevant to its subject is fine (the article no longer refers to the Elgin Commission, for example) - wholesale deletion of material which explains where Childers' views fitted into the bigger picture isn't. If you delete this altogether then you'd need, by the same logic, to delete any explanation of what "Riddle of the Sands" was all about - which would clearly be silly.Paulturtle (talk) 10:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Please don't assume to know where my interests on Wikipedia lie. You may assume that it is to improve the project. The current puffery detracts from where the focus should lie; on Childers's writings and its reception. A detailed treatise on cavalry tactics and the opinions of others, unless directly addressing Childers's books is distracting and essentially off topic. Also, the 'joke' about the ' cul-de-sac leading to a cemetery' is entirely unencyclopedic and has no place here. RashersTierney (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, that’s your opinion isn’t it. It’s not a fact. Or else it might be an amusing story which demonstrates that Childers’s views had irritated the new generation of top brass in the British Army so much that one of them had to be mollified with a grim joke about their impracticability (and black humour about one’s profession, much of which would sound shocking to outsiders, is hardly confined to generals). I am happy to accept your protestations of good faith but you are more likely to receive that courtesy if you first extend it to others – as opposed to making wholesale deletions of material from a topic on which I had already been more than cooperative about removing material like the Elgin Commission which is on reflection not directly relevant and on which discussion had ended (in so far as anything on Wikipedia ever ends) with OldMoonraker’s comment that “That looks about right now”, not to mention aggressive and dismissive phrases like “coat-racking” “barrack room banter” and the ill-judged claim that this section (covering a writing career which took up a decade of the subject’s life and brought him onto the fringes of the national stage) “should be the first to go”.
The bottom line is that as it stands at the moment the section consists of three short paras, much more accurate than before I started to work on it, and frankly rather more succinctly expressed than a lot of the rest of the article. I do not accept that it contains “puffery (which) detracts from where the focus should lie” or “a detailed treatise on cavalry tactics and the opinions of others”. It contains a single sentence explaining what the argument was about and another about how his views did not prevail, along with some other phrases from which the reader can infer that Childers’s views were not as necessarily correct as is sometimes supposed.
Richard Holmes, French’s biographer, has about 6 or 7 index references to Childers and includes some detail on Childers’s views on how the successful charge at Elandslaagte owed a lot to a curious set of coincidental circumstances (probably true), and how Childers felt the need to apologise for disagreeing publicly with Jonny French, the most celebrated cavalry commander in the world at the time. Now, all of that would meet your criterion about being relevant to Childers and his writings, so would you like me to post them in the article? No, thought not.Paulturtle (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That is the second time you have characterised my edits as 'aggressive'. Not very collegial. Leaving that aside for the moment, the analysis of the 'amusing story' in the article, that '[Haig] was mollified by being told that the road was a cul-de-sac leading to a cemetery', is original research. Reid does not say that Haig was 'mollified'. In fact it was likely a fabrication by a noted Haig sycophant and disseminator of disinformation. RashersTierney (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
On-going content disputes are a disqualification from GA status. Just one contributor's insistence  that his/her material, seemingly barred by the WP:TOPIC provisions, must stay debars the article, the work of many earlier contributors, from promotion. My earlier comment "That looks about right now" I regret; I was only trying not to be too negative about the changes.--Old Moonraker (talk) 08:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't see that the 'joke' is appropriate or in fact adds anything that a more direct statement on Haig's attitude towards Childers would, (if that is considered necessary). However, I am firmly of the view that in a section relating to Childers's writing, criticism should be strictly confined to that topic. It is a pity that one editor appears determined to have their views prevail. We can seek comment from the Wikiprojects above, but hopefully we won't need to. 'Throwing the floor open' on a sensitive subject can escalate drama; certainly not desirable. RashersTierney (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a deliberate redlink. I've had it here for quite a while now, in the hope that someone from milhist might be tempted to have a go, but I'm about  to give in and try for myself. I've found enough material for a stub, at least. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. I'll chip in where I can. RashersTierney (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Anglo-Boer War - happy to chip in as required. See Category:City Imperial Volunteers officers Kernel Saunters (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the endorsement, the offers and that link. I can get round to this within the next fortnight month or so.--Old Moonraker (talk) 09:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

There has been a recent, and wholly valid, expansion in the part of the article dealing with War and the Arme Blanche, along with some useful L3 headers to break up some long sections. However, is the new paragraph following, dealing with deliberations of the Elgin Committee and  a road to a cemetery perhaps named after the subject's cousin, really relevant? I suggest the application of "please be bold in deleting" from WP:TOPIC. As the guideline notes: this is particularly valid where the unrelated information has a natural home in another article. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Before I got to work on the section it basically said that Childers' views on the obsolescence of cavalry charges were clearly correct and the British Army refused to accept them because it would have meant admitting they were wrong - and cited as a source a 1970s book, written at a time when the reputation of British WW1 generalship was at its nadir. To quote Sir John French's biographer Richard Holmes "it's easy to chuckle", but there were reasons for their beliefs. Our ancestors may have been wrong about some things but they were no stupider than you or I. By all means trim the section a bit - the key point is that this was a matter of controversy at the highest levels of the British Army and tactical lessons are never as obvious as they appear with hindsight.
You are quite right, the cemetary would most likely have been named after H.C.E.Childers (which I confess hadn't occurred to me) but it is indicative that Erskine Childers' views had attracted enough attention to irritate one of the leading generals of the British Army (which Haig was, even then). I think it's an amusing story and it belongs here rather than in the Haig biog, where it would be too trivial to include.
I cleaned up some of the Irish Home Rule stuff as well, as this was an electoral albatross for the Liberal Party and they most certainly didn't have a mandate for it in 1906 - I was tempted to mention Rosebery's infamous description of Home Rule as "fly-blown phylacteries" in 1900, but that would have attracted the same off-topic objections. It wasn't really the issue in 1910 either, the issues were tariffs and stripping the Lords of their veto to get Lloyd George's budget through.Paulturtle (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Have moved the Elgin Committee to Elgin's own biog, as that's probably not directly relevant unless we have evidence that Childers testified.Paulturtle (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That looks about right now. Incidentally, "Childers' " should be "Childers's" throughout, partly because it's supported by the various style guides, newspaper reports and books, but mostly because of WP:RETAIN and to keep consistency through the article.--Old Moonraker (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a very informative article. The major downside for me was that, in trying to understand Childers spectacular if not unique conversion, the article jumps around his life. From sailing in 1898 to sailing the Asgard in 1914, to the Home Rule Convention in 1917 back to his marriage in 1903, and so on. 79.97.64.240 (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is his ethnonym "British"? Would it not be more accurate to describe him as either English or Anglo-Irish? UaMaol (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Robert Erskine Childers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://afloat.ie/sail/classic-boats/item/19567-howth-gun-running-vessel-asgard-exhibition-launched-at-national-museum
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060303030220/http://generalmichaelcollins.com/Cumann%20na%20nGael/Garrett_Fitzgerald.html to http://www.generalmichaelcollins.com/Cumann%20na%20nGael/Garrett_Fitzgerald.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715200535/http://www.rolandjaquarello.com/Radio.html to http://www.rolandjaquarello.com/Radio.html
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) 18:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps someone here can offer a perspective, my edit concerning Childers was removed from the Seaplane Experimental Station page without it seems any real justification, see the talk page here [1]. I pointed to the simple discrepancy concerning T. E. Lawrence and RAF Calshot and there being what seems to be a double standard applied in this case? Other information was removed about the same time.
My brief summary under See Also was as follows including the citations:

Robert Erskine Childers - author of Riddle of the Sands, noted for his navigational skills and knowledge of the Frisian coast. Winston Churchill was instrumental in Childer's recall and following an urgent request from the Admiralty, he reported to RNAS Felixstowe 18 August 1914 as an officer in the Royal Naval Reserve, in practice attached to the RNAS; Childers flew as an observer, returning as an RAF intelligence officer at the base from April 1918.80.229.34.113 (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

At the moment, under Mary Alan Osgood we have (m. 1904, d. 1922), which strongly implies she died in 1922.  The article goes on to say she died in 1964.  
I'd suggest changing this to (married 1904 - his death), which is the format used in the James Joyce infobox.Clear air turbulence (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

This section is described in the article as a "book", but in fact it's a transcript of a lecture Childers delivered at the Mansion House, Dublin, on 2 March 1912. If I can find a transcript this can be corrected.--AntientNestor (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Trinity College Dublin has placed it online here.--AntientNestor (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
It's at page 30 of the transcript. The quote in the Wikipedia piece is accurate, but I couldn't find anything to justify "Childers’s obsession with whiteness" in the lecture, which deals mainly with fiscal matters and the various forms the potential association between independent Ireland and Britain could take. This whole paragraph of the WP article seems to be a bit of a stretch.--AntientNestor (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
I've added the lecture to the "Conversion" section of the article, using the transcription as the reference.--AntientNestor (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
I am wrong. Childers expanded the lecture into a book The Framework of Home Rule (surprisingly, not in OCLC which which offers only the transcript); Project Gutenberg offers  work  online here. However, the section in our article dealing with this may give undue weight, and I've changed the tag to {{Undue weight|date=August 2023}}. Apologies.--AntientNestor (talk) 07:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Update: There is no such book as  The Form and Purpose of Home Rule, only the lecture under that name, as above—facsimile here. Hathi Trust's online facsimile edition of The Framework of Home Rule (the book) here shows that the WP article is definitely referring to the wrong work. The mistake is not by the OP Dabberoni15; it is as given in the work they used as a source. Confirmation comes from the chapters and text in Framework corresponding to the chapters described in the WP article. 
Incidentally: the Childers family copy of Framework had a copy of the "Form and Purpose" transcript tucked into the back  of it, which may have confused some researchers[3]. 
{{Dubious}} tag reinstated. Sorry for the confusion.--AntientNestor (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposed fix: Add contemporary reaction to to The Framework of Home Rule (the book) and the more recent academic disquiet about its "white imperialist" passages. Trim  the result according to WP:UNDUE and merge into its proper place in the article.--AntientNestor (talk) 09:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Merge completed.--AntientNestor (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Erskine Childers (author)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 10:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Pleased to pick this up. Will work on it over the weekend, likely in fits and starts. Fee free to respond as I go, or when I'm done, at which point I'll ping you. Ping me if anything's unclear.
Two immediate thoughts. First, I see the lead editor hasn't contributed in over a decade. I'm not sure about the etiquette in such circumstances. I can't think a Talkpage notification would be of much value in these circumstances. Second, I've read the (two) previous discussions on a change of title. Personally, I think he's indisputably the most famous Erskine Childers, and note he's the only EC on here. For those reasons, I'd personally propose dropping the (author) element. But it's not a GAN issue, so we can safely park it. KJP1 (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


### Comments
Infobox
"Known for - Navigation" - I appreciate it's hard to summarise details of such a varied life in a box, but I would have thought Riddle of the Sands (RotS) and his Republicanism (and death) are at least as notable.
Lead
A bit short - it's a substantial article and warrants a slightly more substantial lead. I don't think two, short, para.s sufficiently cover the content. It's probably something like - introductory para. (including all his notable relatives/descendants) / para. on his writings, partic. RotS / para. on his political/soldiering careers / para. on his Republicanism and death.
Cites in lead - I loathe these. And I'm not sure I accept the rationale for having them here which is used on the Talk page. Personally, I'd move them all to the first line of Early life and expand the notes in the cites into a full stand-alone footnote.
Expanded. All cites dispensed with.
Early life
"although seemingly healthy, Anna was confined to an isolation hospital, where she died six years later" - this isn't cited and sounds a bit odd. Not unwell, but still confined for six years until her death? Do any of the sources have material which could clarify/explain this a little more? This, [4], a sadly-unusable blog but a VERY well-informed and reliable one, suggests that Anna took the children to Ireland after her husband's death. This, [5] however, suggests Anna also died from tuberculosis.
Expanded and referenced.
"They were treated kindly there and Erskine grew up knowing and loving Ireland" - not sure about the tone. Perhaps, "Well-treated by his extended family, Childers (not Erskine) grew up with a strong affection for, and knowledge of, Ireland" - or some such?
New wording.
"the editor of Cambridge Review" -  "the editor of the Cambridge Review"
Done.
"Although Erskine was an admirer of his cousin Hugh Childers, a member of the British Cabinet working for Irish home rule, at this stage he spoke vehemently against the policy in college debates" - I'm trying to get my head round the chronology. Childers was born in 1870, so he went to Cambridge in about 1888? The first Home Rule Bill (when Hugh Childers was Home Sec.) was 1886. But Erskine surely hadn't become President of Magpie aged 16? Do the sources have the dates for his time at Trinity? On a related point, what did he do between leaving Cambridge and becoming a HoC clerk in 1895?
Clarified chronology and expanded the "gap".
"and which was to dog him for the rest of his life" - the tone is again a tad flowery. Perhaps, "and which persisted"?
 Changed wording.
Sailing
"a friend from schooldays" - I don't think Runciman was at Haileybury, but he was at Trinity. Do the sources definitely say "friend from schooldays", as opposed to "college days"? As an aside to the Cambridge dates query above, Runciman was also born in 1870 and graduated from Trinity in 1892. That sounds right. But if Childers was a contemporary, I don't see how he was debating the 1st HR Bill there in 1886, when he was only 16?
 Changed wording—it was the aftermath of the failed Bill.
"He sold the Shulah in 1895 to a Plymouth man following a trip around the Lizard in a heavyish sea" - arguably, the whole sentence is over-detailed, but I think the identity of the purchaser is definitely a detail too many. And is "heavyish" a word?
 Trimmed and changed wording.
"in Sunbeam, a boat he shared with William le Fanu and other friends" - I'm guessing this isn't Thomas Brassey's Sunbeam?
 Clarified. Brassey's Sunbeam was 532 tons, Childers's was 15.
Boer War
"it was something of a disappointment that the HAC detachment was initially not used" - a couple of things. "something of a disappointment" is tonally awkward for me. So, perhaps, "After a three-week voyage, the company was disappointed not to see immediate action..." or some such.  And I was puzzled by the HAC detachment, firstly what was it? and secondly, why is Childers in a HAC detachment when he joined the CIV? Could you put (HAC) after the earlier mention of the Hon. Artillery Comp. And do the sources explain the relationship between the CIV and the HAC? I assume that the former served as part of the latter.
 Clarified.
"However, it was a smartly executed defence" - I share a weakness for beginning sentences with "however". However, there are some reviewers (particularly at FAC) for whom it is anathema. They are generally correct that the sentence is better without. Here, I think it could be dropped with no loss. There are further instances.
 Done.
"when conscription in Ireland was under consideration, when he wrote" - can we avoid the duplicate "when" by replacing the second with "and".
 Done.
First World War
"Although in 1914 it could be argued that, in the case of war, the Irish Volunteers might fight on the side of Britain" - who's doing the arguing here? Wikipedia, in its own voice? Is it that some people in the establishment at the time felt this to be a possibility, and thus turned a blind eye to Childers's gun-running? If so, we need to make that clear. This leads me to a bigger question. We touch on the Asgard incident here, and in the sailing section. But I am still don't really understand it. What was Childers's status at the time?  A private citizen? I think so. Nonetheless, a month before war, he's buying arms in/from Germany and shipping them to Ireland at a time the country, and the political world, are in uproar over Home Rule, see Curragh incident. And yet nobody bats an eyelid, and the next month he's called up? A call-up instigated by WSC, who later came to loathe him! I'm aware of some of the wilder conspiracy theories (he was a Brit spy all along, and the Asgard scheme was designed to provoke the nationalists into an ill-prepared uprising etc.) I think we need a bit of clarification/expansion here, if the sources permit it. As an aside, p.10 of the Army Intelligence file you reproduce later in the article, makes very clear that Army Intelligence at least was fully aware of his role at Howth.
 John Redmond made this argument—inserted. I couldn't establish how Childers "got away with it" in July 1914, especially as he was trying to get maximum publicity. Expanded the gun-running, but the puzzle remains.
Understood. I’ve seen sources that suggest the PR aspect was in fact the main driver, and that the obsolete rifles were secondary. It’s all rather odd - but we can only go as far as the sources. KJP1 (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 Expanded, and "largely symbolic" added.
"However, Childers believed..." - another "however" that could probably go.
 Gone.
Irish Convention
"Plunkett was obliged to report to the prime minister that no agreement could be reached" - is that entirely fair to the Convention? I think it's arguable that the German 1918 Spring Offensive and the British Gov.s response were the ultimate causes of its failure. Given its complexity, perhaps it would be simpler to go for something like, "Talks lasted nine months but agreement had not been reached when the German Spring 1918 offensive and the British Government's reaction brought its deliberations to an end"?
 Expanded the reason for convention's failure, inserted the Spring Offensive war crisis.
Writings - In the Ranks of the C.I.V.
"and it sold in substantial numbers." - the rule of thumb on citations is that, as a minimum, each para. should conclude with one. This could therefore do with a citation.
 Added.
Writings - RotS
"based not on Henry Childers but on yachting enthusiast Walter Runciman" - you've already introduced and blue linked Runciman in Sailing. Perhaps, "his long-term friend and yachting enthusiast WR", without the bluelink?
 Overlink removed. Some overenthusiasm trimmed. 
Writings - Cavalry Controversy
I've read the Talk Page debate and agree that this should be included as a notable aspect of EC's life/career. I think it summarises it nicely and isn't overlong.
Conversion
Childers's Rebuttal to the Dail (given in External links) has an interesting comment from Childers himself, "One can only hope by the help of Providence to grow from a wrong state of feeling into a right state of feeling, and from that time forward my life simply was this—that by a process of moral and intellectual conviction I came away from Unionism into Nationalism and finally into Republicanism. That is a simple story." I think this would be worth including, as Childers's own explanation for his trajectory.
This is an illuminating speech but, because of its length,  I've only added the most salient point. I've changed the source from the link in the FR section to a print book, to avoid duplication with FR—the link's well worth keeping.
"was his realisation that, given more patient and skilful negotiation, the Boer War could have been avoided" - I'm not sure about this. It sounds like we're saying, as a fact and in Wikipedia's voice, that, handled better, the war could have been avoided. Could this be addressed by replacing "realisation" (which suggests it is a fact) with "view" (i.e. EC believed that it could have been avoided).
Done.
Home Rule and Civil War
Chronology - I think these sections need a bit of a re-order. The HR section concludes with his losing his seat in the June 1922 election. The CV section immediately following begins with his involvement in the Anglo-Irish Treaty which concluded in December 1921. I think the HR section needs a mention of the Irish War of Independence and to conclude with the Anglo-Irish Treaty material. The CV section could then begin with the debates on the Treaty between December 1921 and January 1922 and then flow into the Civil War.
Expanded, chronology adjusted, extra sub-heads added.
"At the termination of the talks, English negotiator David Lloyd George" - that's a rather odd way to describe the, proudly Welsh, British Prime Minister!
Fixed.
"was too infamous to be of any practical use, despite his considerable military experience" - you've two uses of "considerable experience" in two sentences. I'd drop the second clause here and move the "lowly rank" clause to the end of the previous sentence.
Done.
Trial and appeal
"Childers's lawyer appealed to the Supreme Court" - would this, Supreme Court of the Irish Free State, be a better bluelink?
Fixed.
Legacy
WSC and de Valera are great as, wildly differing, contemporary reactions. But I think a little more is needed. Certainly, I'd mention the enduring popularity of RotS, as his fame is now primarily as a novelist. Then, do we know how he is viewed today, particularly in Ireland? There's clearly still interest, [6][7], but is there any scholarly coverage? This, [8] has quite a nice quote from the Irish Times, "every generous mind will deplore the irony of fortune that drove a scholar, a soldier and gentleman into fatal conflict with his own country’s greatest act of reconciliation [the Treaty]". Lastly, probably appropriate to again mention his son as President, and perhaps his grandson?
Small expansion from RTE.
I went through Gale's online index to The Times but I couldn't find the 2 April 2006 article. I couldn't find a RS for the the Irish Times piece of 25 November 1922.
"any writings based upon the extensive and meticulous collection of papers and documents should be locked away from anyone's eyes until 50 years after his death". Two things. I think it's the archive, rather than writings based upon it, which Molly ordered closed. And "locked away from anyone's eyes" is a bit purple. Perhaps, "that Childers's extensive and meticulous collection of papers and documents relating to his involvement in the Irish struggles of the 1920s should be kept closed until 50 years after his death"?
Fixed.
Dramatisations
Not a big fan of this section. It reminds me of those bloody "Media appearances" sections people always want to add at the end of articles on historic houses. It's also weakly-sourced; Youtube, a self-published source, and IMDb would not pass FAC and probably shouldn't pass GA. It also ends a great article on what, for me, is a rather weak note. That said, it's not a deal-breaker if better sources can be found.
No acceptable sources found. Whole section deleted.
References
This looks good, but I need to work through it in a bit more detail. I'll list any issues here. Numbers relate to this version, [9].
General - (a) ISBNs - we've a mix of 10 and 13 digits, hyphenated and unhyphenated. Doesn't matter which, but they should be consistent throughout. And (b) Books - some are cited in full, and some are not - as noted below, some of the sources used are included in Further reading. If they are, the full book details aren't given in this, References, section. I think they should come out of FR and appear here, with full details at first mention. Actually, my preference would be to split Footnotes/References/Sources/Further reading into 4 separate sections and sfn the whole lot! But ignore that.
10 - under Wikipedia:COMMONNAME would it be easier for the reader to call the Countess of Oxford and Asquith, Margot Asquith?
71 - super picky, why is there both a full stop and a colon between the two parts of the title? I appreciate that's how Worldcat produces it, but I don't think it's right. A nation in arms. : a social study of the British army in the First World War
75 - we have the OCLC but nothing else. Shouldn't we have the full details?
77 and 91 - can these be combined.
116 - Garrett Fitzgerald - this is listed as being in Gaelic, but it isn't.
121/122 - missing ISBNs, [10] [11]
131 - I get a "Janus Decommissioned" message. Is there a way of re-linking it?
132/133/135 - as noted above, I don't think we can use these as they don't meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
134 - the only one of the four sources in Dramatisations which meets RS doesn't appear to support the content. It's a pre-production notice, issued before casting/filming had begun.
((outdent}}

All these either caught and fixed or not now used. "77" and "91" are separate works.
Further reading
A couple of things here. First, it contains books that are used and cited in the article, e.g. Boyle/Ring. I don't think they should be in FR. Second, there's a view at FAC, which I understand, that if books listed in FR contain material of value, they should be used and cited. If they don't contain material of value, then why are they in FR? In short, what's the point of the section? That said, I'm fine with it remaining, but I don't think it should include works that are actually used as Sources.
Books in FR are now sources.
External links
Wikiquote - any idea why this doesn't link to the right page?
Pathe - this gives a 404 error.
Both fixed.


### Review Summary
It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): 
The prose is generally of a very high standard. I've made a few suggestions where, for me, it strays a little way from the encyclopaedic to the purple.

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
I think it now meets all MoS requirements. My only initial concern was the brevity of the Lead. The nominator has addressed this admirably. There is a Talkpage comment that suggests a preference for a strictly chronological approach, and there are places where the article revisits topics previously covered. But I think the thematic approach is understandable and sensible. My only concern is the end of the Home Rule section and the start of the Civil War section, where I do think a more chronological approach would help.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section): 
It is accurate and well-supported by a range of reliable sources.

b. (citations to reliable sources): 
I have flagged those few instances in the last section where I don't think the sources meet RS.

c. (OR): 
No evidence of OR found.

d. (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Earwig doesn't suggest any issues,[12] but I'll also do some spot-checking of sources. Have now checked all of the available, on-line sources and am satisfied on this point.

It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects): 
I think the only areas where a little expansion might be possible/desirable are the Asgard Incident, and whether anything more/more recent can be added to Legacy. I've flagged these and the nominator will take a look.

b. (focused): 
There have been some robust discussions on the Talkpage as to what should, and should not, be covered. I think the right balance has now been struck.

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
All good.

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
All good.

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): 
It is well-illustrated by the images available. Many/most of these are not of the highest quality, due to their age, but they are what they are.

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Captions are fine.

Overall:
Pass/fail: 
No need to place On Hold. Nominator is actively responding as the review progresses.

(Criteria marked  are unassessed)

Tentative effort to expand lede and infobox prepared and will be added shortly—further suggestions welcome. As the talk page squabbles over the article name have long ago subsided, it seems possible now to remove all the references from the lede. I'm reluctant to change the article title just now, in case the issue starts up again—it looked a bit acrimonious at the time. Following up on your further suggestions in due course. Many thanks.--AntientNestor (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
My pleasure, it's a very interesting, and well-written article, on an extraordinary life. The lead redraft in your Sandbox will fit the bill very well. Can't do any more this evening but will pick it up tomorrow. KJP1 (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I'll get on with implementing these suggestions, in stages, over the next few days. Again, many thanks for taking this on and for your hard work.
The lead looks great! And your intended approach is fine. Sorry, I know the comments look a bit daunting, but I am nearly done. I'll then summarise everything in the table. It may be easiest, for us both, if you splice in your responses directly below my individual comments. And they are comments/suggestions, so don't feel obliged to implement them if you disagree. Generally, the time scale for GA is 7 days, but we can be completely flexible about this if more time is needed. And ping me if you've any queries. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 08:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Fantastic progress - it is looking very nice indeed! The article shouts FAC! KJP1 (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Please continue to keep a close eye, in case my changes introduce new errors!--AntientNestor (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
References (ending at 160) seems to flow into Sources without a break. Do we need a section header, “Sources”? KJP1 (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Done.

I think I'm just about finished, but there may well be a few points I've missed.--AntientNestor (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so. You've done a superb job and the article looks absolutely great. It was a pleasure to review it, and I'm delighted to pass it. Thank you for engaging so effectively with the review. If you are thinking of FA, and in my view the article certainly warrants it, you may find Wikipedia:Peer review helpful. It has the advantage over GA of giving you a wider range of views. That said, it can be a bit moribund at times. If you do go to FA, please ping me, and I'd be pleased to comment. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
@KJP1: The article's success owes a lot both to your grasp of the broad issues and also to your detailed suggestions. Thank you.--AntientNestor (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Currently embarked on Legacy of Violence: A History of the British Empire. Not an easy or a comfortable read, particularly for a Brit. But I did come across Childers. Writing after the Burning of Cork, he attacked the British Government’s claim that the national movement in Ireland was nothing but a ‘murder squad’; “It is a natural uprising; a collision between two Governments, one resting on consent, the other on force. The Irish are struggling against overwhelming odds to defend their own elected institutions against extinction”. (P=153}} Not saying it has a place in this article, but an interesting insight into his view, and his passion. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Those occurrences should all be changed to Childers', obviously, since his name ends with a zed. 74.49.174.204 (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

No they shouldn't. See MOS:RETAIN and MOS:'S.--AntientNestor (talk) 08:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)