Talk:Patrick Pearse/Archive 1

message: Wikipedia does not exist as mouthpiece for people to post personal information only they know or to attack people who have some deep motivation to keep calling this man a "homo."  The rumors have existed for a long time. Because of that and the fact that the specualtion about his sexual identity has been printed in biographies and other works, it is correct to cautiously include the information in an encyclopedia entry.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a biography or an "approved" history.
If those well-meaning scholars who have access to private papers describing Pearse's relationships with women and/or will substantiate these romances they should.  I have also been told that he had a child with a woman and that the shame of this illegitimate birth is why nobody will name names.  Whatever.
Talk to those who hold the authentic papers and explain to them that for whatever reason, calling an Irish Republican of the past a "homo" seems to be politically correct these days.  Let them know that the papers they hold could be provided to a scholar of repute who could edit them with decency and publish on the subject.  Once somebody quotes a primary source in print or publishes an article on the net that cites such sources, you can then bring that info here and link to it.  Only "proof" of that nature will end the speculation you so dislike.
The other thing I would like to ask is that everyone stop arguing as if being a homosexual man is a crime.  In Pearse's day it was literally a crime but we're a little wiser than that now.  So whether you believe it or not, his sexual identity is ONLY a fact in dispute, not the end of Irish pride if proven to be true.  Have a civil tongue for love of Mike and come back with sources and citations.  I understand your upset, but it was his supporters who first brought up pederasty.  if you don't understand how Wikipedia works, leave me a note on my talk page and I'll explain it to you.  Be aware that only living people have libel protection on Wikipedia.Lisapollison 21:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About the homesexuality mention - be patient and civil with eachother

message: This section leaves a bad taste in my mouth after reading it. Would it be such an outlandish suggestion that Pearse was a bit of an overly-political type rather than a closet case?? Quoting sources that are horrendously biased seems like a poor basis for an entire section.GiollaUidir 19:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal Life Section

message: Though there is some controversy as to when Pearse joined the IRB, I believe it's generally agreed that he joined in December 1913 or early 1914. Most sources list him as being elevated to the Military Council and the Supreme Council in 1915. 
Also, I think it should be mentioned that he was one of the leaders of the Irish Volunteers. His role as Director of Military Organisation was much more important than whether or not he may have had homosexual tendencies. R. fiend
I made the above changes and added alot of stuff. I moved alot around, but don't think I deleted much at all. Anyway, I'll probably polish it up a bit more later. -R. fiend
As curator of the Pearse Museum, I have edited the article quite extensively today. On the issue of Pearse's homosexuality, the evidence for this is circumstantial at best. Whether Pearse was or was not a homosexual must remain a subject of speculation, until someone can produce convincing evidence. There is, no doubt, a strain of homoeroticism in his writings, and particularly in some of his poems. However, this is not proof that Pearse was a practicing homosexual, unlike Sir Roger Casement, whose (now authenticated) Black Diaries reveal that he was.
A curator of the Pearse museum ought to know better than to even bring up the whole homosexuality issue. You of all people know better. You work daily among the memorobilia of his life. You know him as intimately as anyone else living. --RoseP 03:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the rewrite in general (I never liked that bit about homosexuality), but I think some points were deleted unnecessarily, particularly about his role in the Rising, and about MacNeill. Most sources seem to indicate that the leaders of the Rising were hoping to bring MacNeill onboard as their figurehead President until the last minute, when he refused to sign the proclamation. Also the "defeat" of the Home Rule Bill by the House of Lords is misleading. Lords couldn't defeat it; they only had the power to delay it. The real threat to the Bill was the Ulster Volunteers. -R. fiend 04:54, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: The problem is that wikipedia has a policy against original research. While I do not personally believe that Pearse was homosexual, I fail to see how anyone can absolutely prove that he was not a passive, albeit not practicing homosexual; the best one can try to do is refute evidence to the contrary. In any case, the article does not state that he was homosexual, although the accusations have been made, and it would be remiss of wikipedia not to mention as much. -R. fiend 06:36, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: My qualifications aren't as impresive as yours, but I have read many of his fictional works, some of his poetry, some of his letters and a couple of his biographies (yes, including the Edwards bio, who, as I recall, never made the claim that he was gay, and was not the one to popularize the idea, but did address the point and came to the conclusion that he was more asexual than anything). Anyway, I hardly think accusations of homosexuality are a terribly important aspect of his life. Even if he were gay (and, as I said before, I don't believe he was) it's hardly the character assassination it once was. There was a time when, if one wanted to defend Roger Casement in any way whatsoever one would first have to refute allegations of his homosexuality. Today one can admit that he likely was gay, and still defend his actions. In any case, I am intrigued by this proof you discovered, and am curious about this political agenda you speak of, and wonder who these living innocent people are that stand to be harmed. -R. fiend 03:31, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I changed it to "With the aid of Thomas MacDonagh, Pearse's younger brother Willie and other (often transient) academics, it soon proved a successful experiment." Which reflects that the school had an employed staff, but there was a substantial turnover, leaving Willie and MacDonagh (who did leave later) his strongest support. Without their dedication the school might not have succeeded for as long as it did. -R. fiend 09:09, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: You readily admit that what you wrote is original research, and Wikipedia has a strict policy against original research, so even by keeping your vague references to this relationship I have been very generous with your particular assertions. Your refusal to even supply a name, much less evidence of this relationship does your cause no good. And even if you could prove 100% that Pearse had a normal heterosexual relationship, that does not alter the fact that others have speculated that he had homosexual tendencies. You readily admit that this is the case, and yet you refuse to even allow mention of it. Let's look at the few sentences you object to so strongly: "Little is known about his private life, but there has been much speculation." This is true. You have admitted that people have speculated about him.  "In his writings Pearse idealized young boys..." very true, you can read that in his poetry." ...to an extent that he has been accused of sexual attraction to them." Again, you freely admit this in this talk page. You've even supplied the names of those who have accused him (even though you have not supplied the name of this woman in Galway). "This, and the apparent lack of any romantic involvement with women throughout his life..." I made sure to include "apparent" to allow room for your rebuttal. To anyone who has not done specific research of various diaries in Galway (a full 6 billion people) he apprently had no such relationships "...has led to presumptions that he was homosexual." I even specifically used the word "presumption" (supposing to be true without proof, by one definition). "No real evidence for such accusation exists, beyond speculation taken from his works of fiction,..." I even said no proof exists, I've gone as close to exonerating him as one can go " ...which portray young boys in an innocent and angelic, though not sexual, way." even saying not sexual, when people have argued that there is a sexual element to some of his poems (one need not be a pervert to find something a bit disconcerting about a grown man writing a poem in which he kisses a young boy on the lips and admits it has a fragrance that he has "have not found yet In the kisses of women Or in the honey of their bodies"), is walking treading very close to POV. On top of this you leave a glaring non sequitur in the article by mentioning how "different" he might be viewed if people knew he had this relationship with this woman. Different from what? You very vaguely allude to accusations against him without saying anything. You clearly mean that he might not have been accused of homosexuality, but refuse to even have it mentioned. Anyone who doesn't know the full story will not be able to make sense of the final sentence. You also supplied a link to refute "revisionists" but refuse to say what the "revisionism" is. Please note that the article does not say that he was homosexual. It merely says that people have accused him of being such. This is true. I'm reverting the article. Please do not change it back. I'm trying to have the article read from a neutral point of view, which you are bent on undermining. -R. fiend 04:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: So you admit that the article is factual as I had it, yet you keep calling it a lie. I'm having a lot of trouble following your logic. Pretending no one has ever accused him of homosexuality isn't going to make it true. As for the "ideals of the Republic", well that's just silly. A Republican government does not rest on the sexual orientation of a single person who died 89 years ago. If you keep changing the page it may be protected, or you may be blocked from editing. -R. fiend 17:31, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: IRB membership

message: I have been correcting mistakes in the Personal Life section and the moderator continues to overwrite them to push his political agenda. He includes some nonsense on Lincoln, which is totally irrelevant; he defames the Christian Brothers as being fanatically anti British which is nonsense. He includes Ruth Dudley Edwards who is an acknoweldged revisionist historian and is a writer for the Sunday Independent which is rabidly anti Pearse.  A "comedy" piece on Pearse in the Sunday Independent is included as a reference, which it is not. It finsishes up with a slur that a majority of historians "do not dsismiss the gay slur". The moderator is a disgrace and is a major impediment to contriburs of any persuasion adding information here. As long as he ocntinues with this agenda, the Pearse entry will not go forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taigs (talk • contribs) 
:You're correct about the "anti-British" thing, I accidentally reverted that back in (and it wasn't Jtdirl or myself who added it in the first place). Couple of things though: 
:*Please don't add self-refererences to other Wikipedia editors into articles. Wikipedia:Avoid self-references.
:*Who acknowledges Dudley-Edwards as "revisionist"? And why should it matter that she writes for the Indo? Maybe it would be better to call her a "unionist" historian instead?
:*The references provided show that these rumours do exist, and should be dealt with even-handedly. Note that the version you are opposed to includes the sentence "No evidence has been produced that Pearse engaged in any homosexual sexual acts."
:*Please read WP:CIVIL and don't refer to other editors as "a disgrace". 
:Demiurge 11:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Also please note the 3 revert rule, which forbids you (as well as myself and other editors) from reverting a page more than 3 times in any 24 hour period. Demiurge 11:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: *I'm not threatening to block you (I'm not an administrator, so I do not have the power to block you). But if you continue to abuse other editors, you are liable to be blocked by someone else who is an administrator. The reference to Lincoln is an interesting historical parallel; what exactly is your objection to it? I hardly think comparing Pearse to Abraham Lincoln of all people can be seen as a "smear". Demiurge 12:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: April 25th

message: I strongly suggest that the sentence which alleges that the speculation over Pearse's sexuality was motivated by a British-inspired smear campaign against Irish republicanism be removed.
Ruth Dudley Edwards wrote her biography of Pearse in 1978. She only began writing journalism on the Northern Ireland Peace Process in 1993. Therefore it is absolutely irrelevant to describe her as "neo-unionist" when quoting her historical research on Pearse. If Provos would actually read the book, they would find that Edwards comes to no concrete conclusions on Pearse's sexuality, naturally because he was so ambiguous about it. It would in fact be more accurate to say he was "asexual".
P.S. Why would speculation that Pearse was a homosexual smear his reputation? Even if he was, so what? Provos can be so sensitive...
:I would suggest that you describing anyone who objects to the speculation from RDE as a "Provo" shows your opinion is rightfully disregarded. One Night In Hackney303 15:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I refer you to my point above. One Night In Hackney303 15:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I had to remove the last sentence as being utterly unencyclopedic. "Obviously" a smear campaign? Who's to say it's obviously anything? Furthermore the evidence is not solely from pro-British sources; some of it comes from his own poetry in which he describes kissing young boys on the lips and the like. -R. fiend 23:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's just remove the fringe minorty view completely then. One Night In Hackney303 23:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be more inclined to support its inclusion it the source wasnt just from a smear merchant like R D-E - shes about as credible was her mate Sean O'Callaghan.--Vintagekits 12:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Poetry," is down to interpretation, and representation. Could the boy in the poem, represent Christ? Or possibly… The list is endless. --Domer48 12:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Smear Campaign" 

message: Nitpicking here, but why is the Flag of Ireland used in the infobox? It wasn't used in any way when Pearse was born, and wasn't official until after he died. Stu ’Bout ye! 14:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you know the answer - WP:FLAGCRUFT. One Night In Hackney303 14:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed them from some of the other Rising articles. Stu ’Bout ye! 14:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flags in infobox

message: Osioni recent changes are in the case of "called on all parties to stand united with Redmond in the struggle," the book says he "called on all intrested parties to submerge their differences." I think this is an important point and should not be omitted. On the point "On a public platform at the great Home Rule Rally in Dublin city centre on 31 March 1912, Pearse was one of four speakers," the is no mention of the fact that the meeting was boycotted by Sinn Féin, O'Brienites and Republicans and that the speakers were an "unrepresentative group," according to the author.  Basically it has all been copied word for word from the book, I may be wrong but you should not do that? If I am wrong, revert my changes. Thanks   --Domer48 22:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent changes 

message: There may be some confusion about Pearse's place on the Supreme Council and that of the Military Council. I will look it over later, unless anyone else wants to. --Domer48 (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's any doubt that Pearse was on the Military Council as soon as it was formed; if all sources agree on when that was we can probably put that matter to rest. As for the Supreme Council, it should be looked into. I'd be a bit uncertain of Kathleen Clarke, as she was not an involved party and was writing years later. I think it may be her who is perhaps confusing when Pearse was on the Supreme Council and when he was brought into the IRB in the first place. But it should be looked into. I believe O'Hegarty was on the Supreme Council, does he say anything about it? -R. fiend (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, at least that's further evidence that Neeson is wrong, and it backs up Hobson's date of December(ish). It also seems to contradict Kathleen Clarke's assertion that Pearse was on the Supreme Council in December, as it seems impossible that he'd be promoted so highly within weeks (days?) of being first sworn in. This is particularly unlikely given his imminent departure for the USA, and his vocal support for Home Rule a couple years earlier. Seems she's confusing his promotion to the Supreme Council with his initial entry into the organization. -R. fiend (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supreme Council  

message: There are far too many blockquotes in this article.  Virtually none of them are necessary.  An encyclopedia article should state facts e.g. "Pearse at his court-martial said that he had worked all his life for Irish freedom", "Æ, in a poem, said that Pearse's sacrifice had made his spirit rise."  The blockquotes to my mind take from the article rather than adding to it.  Scolaire (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blockquotes 

message: Why cant this poem be quoted?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.252.66 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The short answer is: because this is not a poetry book.  A more interesting question, though, is this: why has this particular poem been added to the article, without any comment or context, so many times at irregular intervals by a succession of usernames and IPs?  Either a lot of people, or one person with a lot of identities, apparently think that the significance of this English translation of this (not especially good) poem is blindingly obvious, but the other strange thing is that none of them have ever bothered to explain its significance either in their edit summaries or on this page (NB there is a paragraph in the article dealing with it).  BTW I believe that A Chinn Aluinn should also be removed for the same reason (see above).  Scolaire (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

text: And that is significant how?  Scolaire (talk) 06:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

text: What police records?  Where in London?  And what allegations - that he wrote a poem about a boy?  And even if you can answer those questions, how can it "show" it if you just dump the poem willy-nilly in the article without comment or context?  If you get a sexual thrill from typing a harmless poem in an encyclopædia article, that's your problem.  But it will be speedily removed each time.  Scolaire (talk) 10:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Simple, verifiable fact?  And how does a poem to a fictional boy prove he abused real-life children?  Scolaire (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Little Lad of Tricks