Talk:Erskine Childers (author)

message: I have classified this article as a start due to its level of organisation and detail. Capitalistroadster 06:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Start classification

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Automatic Pistol or Revolver

message: 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)
replies: text: No. He is generally known by all three names. Kittybrewster  ☎ 23:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I am British - not Irish. Kittybrewster  ☎ 19:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm dropping the suggestion: expanded "Erskine" in the lead paragraph instead. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Irish Convention]] and [[Anglo-Irish Treaty]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fixed, with acknowledgement to you. Good catch. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of his wife's death 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Over-nice 'bot edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: Go ahead. It makes more sense. RashersTierney (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: OK: my "first thoughts" prevail again. Getting on with it. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Asgard'' in the lede 

message: 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)
replies: text: Trim the fat and you have my support in getting this article ready for submission. RashersTierney (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Try for "Good Article"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Go for it. I'll chip in where I can. RashersTierney (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anglo-Boer War - happy to chip in as required. See :Category:City Imperial Volunteers officers Kernel Saunters (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  City Imperial Volunteers 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Elgin Committee 

message: 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)
thread_title: Chronological development

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ethnonym is British? 

message: 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  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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 . 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)
thread_title:  Seaplane Experimental Station 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Marriage details in infobox 

message: 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)
replies: text: Trinity College Dublin has placed it online here.--AntientNestor (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 . Apologies.--AntientNestor (talk) 07:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Merge completed.--AntientNestor (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Form and Purpose of Home Rule. A Lecture Delivered" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Caroline Elkins]]