Talk:Easter Rising/Archive 1

message: I have put the cleanup flag on this article because I think it reflects the traditional British view of the rising e.g. if only they had not executed the leaders things might have worked out very differently.  It would help if it took account of Fay and Burton's work e.g. that hostility to the rising among the Dublin population has been exagerrated, or that while the rising presented major military problems it was not an obvious piece of lunacy or intended as a "blood sacrifice", the British troops actually did quite well to defeat the rising in only a week. PatGallacher 00:07, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
:I'm not convinced. No one can say what might have happened if the Brits hadn't executed the leaders, but the article doesn't really dwell on that. Robert Kee, for instance, postulates that the support for Sinn Fein in 1918 was less about the population being appalled at the executions of the leaders so much as their reslove against conscription and the division of Ireland. While the antipathy for the general population for the rising and its leaders wasn't universal, it was pretty widespread, which is hardly surprising given the number of Irishmen serving in the British army at the time, as well as the fact that the rising resulted mostly in the death of Irishmen, not British soldiers. Likewise there was still substantial support for and belief in Home Rule. Certainly Pearse, at least, did view the rising as a blood sacrifice, and while other leaders may have hoped or victory, once it began they new quite well it was not feasible from a military standpoint; Connolly himself said they didn't stand a chance. Roughly a thousand under-equipped, ill-trained men never did stand a chance at victory. Had they got the entirety of the Irish Volunteers to turn out they might have played havoc with British rule in Ireland foir a time, but hey knew that wasn't going to happen, particularly after MacNeill's countermand. I'm going to remove the cleanup tag, though you should feel free to edit the article as you see fit. -R. fiend 01:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup tag 

message: Do we really need a whole paragraph on this? Maybe a sentence would be ok, but it look rather irrelevent to me. 
Jdorney 14:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rm Boer paragraph?

message: Aside from intervening in de Valera's execution, does anybody know what the US reaction was? Did they openly criticise it?  El Gringo 02:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: US reaction to the Rising

message: "The Easter Rising (Irish: Éirí Amach na Cásca) was a rebellion staged in Ireland against British rule on Easter Monday, April 24, 1916. Despite its military failure, it can be judged as being a significant stepping-stone in the eventual creation of the Irish Republic. The rising was the most significant since the rebellion of 1798. It was an attempt by militant republicans to violently force independence from the United Kingdom. The Irish Republican revolutionary attempt occurred from April 24 to April 30, 1916, in which the Irish Republican Brotherhood ..."
There is a good deal of repitition in this short paragraph:
:The date, April 24th, appears twice
:That it was against British rule is stated twice
:That it was staged by republicans is stated three times
There is also an error of fact: The IRB was involved in the planning of the Rising, but did not "attempt" it, "joined by a part of the Irish Volunteers and the smaller Irish Citizen Army."
My edit is an attempt to make the opening paragraph more readable.  It is not an attempt to introduce any POV.  Feel free to re-word it, but please do not simply revert, as that achieves nothing.
Scolaire 16:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is greatly improved.  It flows better with the rewording and the removal of the repetitious dates and phrases. ---Charles 17:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening paragraph

message: For want of a more suitable image, I have moved the pic of the Proclamation into the infobox. I have also shortened the caption, as the reading of the Proclamation is dealt with in the article itself.  Personally, I would prefer to have something like a photo of O'Connell St. after the fighting, if one could be found or uploaded.
Scolaire 19:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Proclamation and the infobox

message: So that the opening paragraph becomes the opening paragraph, I have given the second paragraph a title. This puts it under the table of contents and into the article proper.  I would have no problem with the title being changed. It was the best I could think of.  I have moved the third paragraph down into the "1918 General Election" section because it deals with later events.  I've also removed all links from this particular paragraph because everything in it has already been linked to above.  Scolaire 22:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening paragraph (continued)

message: No, I'm sorry, but the IRB were not combatants in this (see the first "Opening Paragraph" above). The IRB was a secret, oathbound society devoted to bringing about an uprising. It was in no sense an army, it did not have a uniform and its members carried guns only as members of some other organization e.g. the Volunteers. IRB has to go.
The RIC were involved because they were attacked by Volunteers in Ashbourne, so I suppose you have to allow them as combatants, but I don't remember anything about the DMP engaging the Republicans in battle in Dublin. In the absence of some sort of citation, I think the DMP has to go as well.
Scolaire 18:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: The Background sections says the Home Rule Act 1914 introduced partition, but the article on it says that the 1914 Act was for one Home Rule Parliament for the whole island. And that partition didn't become an issue until later - this was my understanding. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs)  18:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. The intro to the Home Rule Act 1914 is a bit vague about it. I'll leave a note on its talk page. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs)  20:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction about partition? 

message: the irish citizens who rose up to oust the british cannot be referred to as "militants". they were irish citizens who took up arms to free their homeland from english rule. to me they are the same as the Palestinians who defend thier homeland from Zionist occupation. Keltik31 13:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  militant?  

message: heard recently the there may have been upwards of 2000 men in wexford (a freind of a freind cited these books as souces....);
Wexford in the Rare oul' times by Nicholas Furlong/Enniscorthy 2000 by P Rossiter and 
Na daoine Loch Garman may 1916.. 
men took both wexford and enniscorthy towns....
amnt sure but it might be worth checkin up on....
--83.45.174.74 15:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebellion outside Dublin 

message: The third paragraph of this article refers to 73 republicans (then represented by the Sinn Féin party) being returned in the 1918 general election.
"Sinn Féin", however, links to the article about the current Sinn Féin - not to the SF that existed in 1918. Accordingly, I changed the link so that it directed to History of Sinn Féin, which is the more relevant article, given that it deals in depth with SF in 1918. Unfortunately, the change has been reverted.
To link to the Sinn Féin article is a breach of NPOV as it gives readers the impression that the current party bearing the SF name is the one and the same as the party elected in 1918, without any regard to the numerous splits and offshoots that have occurred since (i.e. it gives credence to the particular POV that the current SF (and not any other SF or SF-offshoot) is the one true and unambiguous heir to the party of 1918). This issue has caused great dispute on the SF article, so there should be no excuse for my edit being reverted by someone who was aware of the controversy. The SF article says that the current party was formed in 1970.
Any other views? Mooretwin (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Give it up, Mooretwin.  The SF article does not say that the current party was formed in 1970, it says that it originated in the SF organisation of 1905 and took its current form in 1970.  The "great dispute" was carried on by you alone, against the rest of Wikipedia, for nigh-on two years.  It took the intervention of a neutral admin to establish definitively that your "one true and unambiguous" POV was against consensus.  Your attempts to continue your POV war on History of Sinn Féin also failed for lack of consensus.  You are now attempting the same thing again by editing over a range of articles, including deliberately provocative edit summaries referring to "PSF".  You are asking for another block.  Scolaire (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not make untrue statements. The dispute was not carried out by me alone: that is a lie. Please retract it. Please also desist from making threats and stick to discussing the content of the article. Other than to deny that the current article states that the party was formed in 1970 (look at the infobox), have you anything else to say in response to my contribution above? The SF article is deliberately ambiguous, the claim that the current SF is the singular inheritor of the 1905 SF is controversial (even you don't agree with that), so the most neutral thing to do here is link to the History article, and not to the article about the current party. Mooretwin (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Sinn Féin 

message: It is nearly five years since the 90th anniversary celebrations. Were they really that memorable? Does such a detailed description add anything to an article on the Rising itself? I propose that we add a single, very brief sentence to the end of the Legacy section ("The 90th anniversary was celebrated with military parade in Dublin on Easter Sunday, 2006, with the President of Ireland, the Taoiseach and the Lord Mayor of Dublin in attendance"), and delete this entire section.  Scolaire (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but the history of the commemoration of the Rising, particularly in the 20s and 30s and on the 50th anniversary in 1966 is significant in terms of building the nationalist identity of the southern state, and in the north mobilising people of republican views against that state. Perhaps we could have a more wide-ranging para about that? The 2006 element would be a small addendum. Hold on, I see we actually have this already! Jdorney (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly! And 1966, which has had at least one book written about it, gets a cursory mention, while 2006 gets equal coverage in Legacy plus a section of its own.  Scolaire (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, maybe a bit more on 1966 and get rid of the 2006 stuff bar a mention. Jdorney (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: '90th Anniversary of the 1916 Rising'

message: There is no mention of the operations of the Volunteers on St Patrick's day 1916 in the article. The St Patrick's day demonstration in the centre of Dublin was the first time the Volunteers had taken aggressive action in daylight. It was just under a month before the Rising. There was also leaflets distributed on St Patrick's day containing "Twenty plain facts for Irishmen". I believe the St Patrick's day demonstration is important to the Build-up to Easter Week and infomation should be added about it. Does anyone have the full list of "Twenty plain facts for Irishmen"? --MFIreland (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Twenty plain facts for Irishmen first appeared in the Nov. 1914 edition of The Irish Review, which edition was apparently edited by Joe Plunkett. This source holds that two slightly different versions were produced. RashersTierney (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  St Patrick's Day 1916 

message: If the following paragraph represents dates of executions, it should so say so.  Right now it's just sitting there unexplained:   
 03 May: Patrick Pearse, Thomas MacDonagh and Thomas J. Clarke
    04 May: Joseph Plunkett, William Pearse, Edward Daly and Micheal O'Hanrahan
    05 May: John MacBride
    08 May: Eamonn Ceannt, Micheal Mallin, J.J. Heuston and Cornelius Colbert
    12 May: James Connolly and Sean MacDiarmada
KD Tries Again (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Executions? 

message: The links to the BBC episodes of Rebel Heart and the theme music composed by Sharon Corr were vandalized because an editor thought they were not relevant.  Nothing could be further from the truth!  Episode one is about the Easter Rising.  Surely we don't exclude references in the arts and culture.TonyMath (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If nobody has any objection, I will restore the links TonyMath (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalization of links to Rebel Heart

message: Are you aware of WP:NPOV? This is an encyclopedia with a balanced perspective.
This is totally fucking unbalanced.
When I first heard this topic discussed 40+ years ago here in Canada it wasn't called the "Easter Rising". Oh, how romantic. How cutesy. You're baking a cake for Easter time; that's sweet.
Where is its real name in the article? Eh?
Where the hell is the balance?
The lead paragraph is an embarrassment to objectivity.
This is exactly what happens when POV pushers with an agenda take over an article. Varlaam (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Say what? 2 lines of K303 18:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Varlaam got a block record as long as your arm and a final warning for an indef.  Some of that is for tirades like this which make no argument but are just rants. ----Snowded TALK 18:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like he's just saying "Easter Rising" is a bit trite (I guess I agree) and that we should at least include the alternative "Easter Rebellion" in the introduction. He added it (with sources) but was reverted out of hand and ordered to discuss. Maybe he's been blocked before and warned for other stuff, but underneath it all he does have a point, no? Neutrality and all that? Keep your fork, there's pie (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Show some evidence of common use for "Rebellion", its rare as far as I see from most history books.  The odd reference is not enough.  Before you use perforative phrases like "ordered" and "out of hand" try reading up on WP:BRD ----Snowded TALK 20:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: BRD is just an essay. I don't have to "read up" on it. But fair enough - you were nice enough when you reverted him. I was just trying to see things from his side. As for common use, I don't think it's "common" to talk about the Easter Rising at all. I don't know much about it. But what kind of sources would be acceptable? How many? Keep your fork, there's pie (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

text: 1916 Rising? 1916 Rebellion? Sinn Fein Rebellion? Sinn Fein Rising? Sinn Fein Uprising? Easter Uprising? I'm sure there's a couple more too, so how many names should we have in the first sentence? 2 lines of K303 20:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: BRD may be an essay but its generally enforced if an issue goes to ANI.  Its always advisable on anything related to The Troubles.  Otherwise "Fork" you really shouldn't say that you don't much about a subject just after you have expressed an opinion.  I suggest you do a little research before making statements like that.  ----Snowded TALK 20:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not afraid to admit I don't know much about the subject. I don't have to know much about the subject, because I'm not really talking about the subject. I'm talking about the angry guy who started this thread. I can read, so I can see that he cited a source, and I can see that he might have something resembling a point... why do I have to know all the ins and outs of Irish politics to have an opinion? Keep your fork, there's pie (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And, for the record, I don't really have an opinion. I said "I guess" I agree about the title seeming trite, but other than that, I don't really have anything to add except to say that maybe Varlaam has a point. I could be wrong even about that, though. Again, not afraid to admit it. Keep your fork, there's pie (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

text: There appear to be a fair number of sources supporting "Easter Rebellion" as an alternate name, such as http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/easter-rebellion-begins, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/176916/Easter-Rising, http://www.britishpathe.com/video/war-in-ireland-easter-rebellion, and http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/denilp20&div=8&id=&page=. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not disputing that it's an alternate name. My point is there's at least half a dozen other alternate names all of which can be reliably sourced, so the opening sentence is going to look rather ridiculous if we include them all don't you agree? 2 lines of K303 18:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What other names are used often enough in reliable sources to be candidate for lede mentions? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the ones mentioned in this post which I already referred back to? 2 lines of K303 19:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, yeah. You mean I was supposed to read the discussion? :-) I think we can omit "1916 uprising/rebellion", because it's too generic. "Sinn Fein uprising" seems to appear mostly with a lowercase "u". "Sinn Fein Rebellion", otoh, might have a claim because http://www.sinnfein.org/documents/intro.html states that the press at the time referred to it that way, accurately or not. "Easter Rebellion" does have an order of magnitude fewer hits than "Easter Rising", granted. Maybe we should go with "Easter Rising, also known as the Sinn Fein Rebellion"?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with Sinn Fein Rising/Rebellion is that both are deprecated by sources, and almost always used with the qualifier that it was an erroneous name and/or used by the British. It's briefly touched on in the article here, it could probably do with a bit of expansion to include the names. But I'm not sure if it should go in the lead without some degree of qualification? 2 lines of K303 19:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Qualification like "Easter Rising, known in contemporary British reports as the Sinn Fein Rebellion"? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: After a bit of research (should have done that first really!) it was also the Irish public (probably influenced by the fact the press were saying it, although from memory various citizens were saying it was the "Sinn Feiners" even during the rising itself), which makes things more difficult. It's further complicated by the fact I was thinking of "erroneously" or similar as a qualifier, so we'd really be looking at a double qualification which could get a bit convoluted. 2 lines of K303 19:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discuss what? 

message: I've no personal objection to the inclusion of "Easter Rebellion" as an alternate name. However the problem is that as I said at 20:35 yesterday there are quite a few alternate names for the rising, so if you're going to include one then you have to include them all. In my opinion including all those alternate names in the lead would be ridiculous, we'd be about four lines down on the page before we'd finished. 2 lines of K303 16:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There appear to be a fair number of sources supporting "Easter Rebellion" as an alternate name, such as http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/easter-rebellion-begins, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/176916/Easter-Rising, http://www.britishpathe.com/video/war-in-ireland-easter-rebellion, and http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/denilp20&div=8&id=&page=. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not disputing that it's an alternate name. My point is there's at least half a dozen other alternate names all of which can be reliably sourced, so the opening sentence is going to look rather ridiculous if we include them all don't you agree? 2 lines of K303 18:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What other names are used often enough in reliable sources to be candidate for lede mentions? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the ones mentioned in this post which I already referred back to? 2 lines of K303 19:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, yeah. You mean I was supposed to read the discussion? :-) I think we can omit "1916 uprising/rebellion", because it's too generic. "Sinn Fein uprising" seems to appear mostly with a lowercase "u". "Sinn Fein Rebellion", otoh, might have a claim because http://www.sinnfein.org/documents/intro.html states that the press at the time referred to it that way, accurately or not. "Easter Rebellion" does have an order of magnitude fewer hits than "Easter Rising", granted. Maybe we should go with "Easter Rising, also known as the Sinn Fein Rebellion"?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with Sinn Fein Rising/Rebellion is that both are deprecated by sources, and almost always used with the qualifier that it was an erroneous name and/or used by the British. It's briefly touched on in the article here, it could probably do with a bit of expansion to include the names. But I'm not sure if it should go in the lead without some degree of qualification? 2 lines of K303 19:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Qualification like "Easter Rising, known in contemporary British reports as the Sinn Fein Rebellion"? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: After a bit of research (should have done that first really!) it was also the Irish public (probably influenced by the fact the press were saying it, although from memory various citizens were saying it was the "Sinn Feiners" even during the rising itself), which makes things more difficult. It's further complicated by the fact I was thinking of "erroneously" or similar as a qualifier, so we'd really be looking at a double qualification which could get a bit convoluted. 2 lines of K303 19:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting back to the point

message: Rather than see the current edit-war pepetuated, I think it should be stated here that Germany was not a combatant in the Rising. Germany sent one shipload of arms that never reached land. It did not engage in any fighting in Ireland. A combatant is somebody who fights.  Scolaire (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, though as Germany sent that shipload of arms it should be noted that they were willing to arm the rebellion. Mabuska (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is certainly mentioned in the article already. I see no place for it in the infobox, however. -R. fiend (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany 

message: The article is getting a sizeable number of updates from a 92.7.*.*-based user and these are being reverted quite quickly. I suggest the user calms his/her jets for the time being and proposes changes here on the talk page rather than making them directly to the article.
If that doesn't happen, is there support to soft protect the article? I suggest a period of two weeks until after the anniversary of the Rising.
--RA (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I for one support protection 100%.  Scolaire (talk) 11:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No! You protect against vandalism, not against content disputes. You should both know better. 86.31.189.83 (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism or edit-warring. Continuing to revert to your own version against consensus and while discussion is still ongoing is edit-warring. Here it is again, just a couple of hours ago.  Scolaire (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Support protection and/or topic ban, this campaign is getting tedious. Brocach (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem user? Then deal with the user. Policy doesn't permit preemtive semi protection, nor protecting to exclude IPs. There's no argument, a block here is not permitted, according to policy anyway. Further; RA - an interested party - should not use his admin rights here. You want semi protection, then request it at whatever notice board handles it, but if it's pure edit warring, and that's what it looks like to me, then full protection is the order of the day. 86.31.189.83 (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You're awfully dogmatic for an anon! If you're so clued in on procedures and anxious to do things properly why don't you get yourself an account? Or do I mean, why don't you log on before posting? And RA never said he was going to protect it himself. He makes a point of not acting as admin on any article that he has any involvement in.  Scolaire (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are just so typical of your avearge Wiki enthusiast. If there's a choice between addressing the issue at hand or questioning the probity of a new or anonymous contributor to the debate, you leap at the latter. 86.31.189.83 (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As opposed to an above average Wiki enthusiast who lectures us on Wiki policy without telling us where he got his specialist knowledge from, or even why he is interested in the case in the first place?  Scolaire (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

text: I think any sort of protection at this point isn't really necessary. We've had only 2 ip edits today, and the talk page is being used. If it gets worse that's another story, but it seems to be getting better for the moment. -R. fiend (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

text: @86.31.189.83, I would not consider protecting the page myself except in the case of very strong support, where it would be uncontroversial, and/or where there would be cause for immediate action. My plan was that, in the event of consensus here, I would request page protection at the usual forum. --RA (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soft protection?