Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:42, 2 February 2014

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ireland High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Irish republicanism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish republicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish republicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish republicanismIrish republicanism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: British / European This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. European history Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on April 24, 2004, April 24, 2005, April 24, 2006, April 24, 2007, April 24, 2008, and April 24, 2012.

Archives

Archive 1 (2002–2006) Archive 2 (2007) Archive 3 (2008) Archive 4 (2009)

Tagged for (lack of) accuracy

I see Superfopp has managed to bring his disruption to this article now. Although I'm in the process of rewriting this article, the Jackanory bollocks he's just added merits tagging:

• "In County Wexford, about 600 Volunteers took over Enniscorthy on Thursday 27 April" - no.
• "The Volunteers blocked all roads and the railway line" - no.
• "Shots were fired and one constable was wounded, although no real attempt was made to seize the barracks" - no.
• "A group was sent north and took over the town of Ferns, but retreated upon spotting a force of 1000 British soldiers heading for Enniscorthy" - no.
• "However, the Volunteer leaders were sceptical of the news and refused to surrender until Patrick Pearse confirmed it to them" - no.
• "Later that day, the British escorted two of the leaders to Dublin, where they met Pearse in Kilmainham Gaol" - absolutely and unequivocally no.

I suggest that you fix the total and utter fiction you've added to this article, this is an encyclopedia not a storybook. One editor has been recently banned for making things up, I suggest in future you ensure you stick to what the sources actually say not what you think they say. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No attempt to defend the edits or correct them then? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit I don't know much about the Rising outside of Dublin, so, other than the last one which certainly seems wrong to me, I can't comment except to say he does provide a source. He seems to rely exclusively on a recent book by John Boyle, which I had not heard of until now. Is the book incorrect, is he misquoting it, or are these edits basically true? What's your take? Take your first example. What's incorrect: the number of Volunteers, that they took over Enniscorthy, the date, or all of it? What sources contradict this? As I said, I really don't know, but I would be hesitant to remove material that appears to be well sourced just on the say-so of another editor.

I will say this, though: using the exact same footnote for every single sentence in multiple paragraphs is poor form. No one but Misplaced Pages seems to do this. That at the very least should be fixed. -R. fiend (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Like most edits by the editor in question, there is either a deliberate misuse of sources or a clear case of failure to understand basic English.

"Enniscorthy contains about 5,000 inhabitants, and is a prosperous place in ordinary times. In Easter week, however, business was neglected, and the town seethed with excitement over the news of the revolutioon in Dubln. It was Thursday morning, however, before the insurgents were ready to act. About two o'clock that day, to the number of over two hundred, they seized the Athenaeum, one of the most prominent buildings in the town, and proceeded to convert it into their headquarters." The only mention I can see of 600 is in the sentence "In Wexford town itself the National Volunteers, who were followrs of Mr. Redmond, turned out to assist the military and police, and 600 special contables were enrolled, the Mayor being of the number." which appears a considerable distance later in the chapter. So that doesn't even refer to the Irish Volunteers, but the number of special contables enrolled to help suppress the Rising.

"The insurgents next turned their attention to the railway station. They cut the telephone and telegraph wires, tore yp the line, held up and took possession of a train that was proceeding from Wexford to Arklow with 300 working men for Kynoch's munition factory. They tried to blow up a bridge at Scara Walsh over the River Slaney, and were also about to destory the viaduct at Enniscorthy, but at the last moment changed their minds. They commandeered over a score of motor-cars in the town, took control of various houses which controlled the roads leading to Enniscorthy, and then extended their operations into the adjoining country." How that becomes "The Volunteers blocked all roads and the railway line" is beyond me, anyone else?

"They attacked the police station, which was defended by constables armed with rifles, but were unable to gain possession. One of the constables was wounded, and this, singular to say, was the only casualty in the whole rising as far as the county Wexford was concerned". So we have the remarkable bias of "although no real attempt was made to seize the barracks" added making it seem as though the Volunteers failed to seize the barracks because they couldn't really be bothered, when the source doesn't say that.

"They advanced and captured the town of Ferns, making an old mansion in the vicinity their headquarters. They were about to progress in the Gorey direction when the arrival of the military made them retire on their main position, which they had hastily fortified by digging some trenches. Some thought seems to have been bestowed on the advisability of imiating the example of their ancestors and making a stand on the dominating height of Vinegar Hill, but in the absence of artillery it was felt that this would be an impossible position to maintain. they still, however, held the town of Enniscorthy, where the flag of the "Irish Republic" was hoisted. Then a few pargraphs later "On Monday morning a force of 1,000 troops, comprising cavalry, infantry and artillery, under the command of Colonel French, entered the town, which from the previous Thursday had been almost completely in the possession of the insurgents". So "A group was sent north and took over the town of Ferns, but retreated upon spotting a force of 1000 British soldiers heading for Enniscorthy" is classic synthesis, there's nothing that says the first group of military is the same as the one referred to later.

The other problems have been changed already, like the part about Pearse being held in Kilmainham Gaol when he was actually at Arbor Hill until after his court-martial? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am well acquainted with the "deliberate fraud/comprehension fail" conundrum, and I, for one, won't try to make a call as to what we're dealing with here. But it hardly matters. Now, you don't say where these quotes are coming from, so I assume they're the same source cited in the article, is that right? Looks pretty good to me. I say go ahead and make corrections based on the source. You can probably cut out a good amount, as it does seem the Enniscorthy campaign was not exactly the most significant aspect of Easter Week. I'd help, but not having the source I'd be of little use. Anyone else want to weigh in? -R. fiend (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be 'be bold' (sic) and rewrite this section now. It's been tagged for too long as it is. Ans, as outlined above, there are serious problems. Jdorney (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes those quotes were direct from the book, I should have said that really. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Link to Sinn Féin

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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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)

Reaction of Dublin Public

This section as it stands (17/5/10) is totally unbalanced.

Peter Beresford Ellis's account is the only one credited with accuracy when there are dozens of accounts from the time and from subsequent historians of extreme hostility to the Volunteers after the Rising. It's fine to note that this conventional wisdom is disputed but not to say that PBE is right and everyone else is wrong.

In this interview http://www.theirishstory.com/2010/05/05/ferghal-mcgarry-interview/ Fearghal McGarry, who just written a book on the subject based on the Military History Archives (interviews with participants) says there are some accounts of support for the Volunteers but many more of them being abused, spat at, hit etc, by civilians after the Rising.

This section needs to be totally re-written if it's to reflect the balance of historical work done on the subject.

Jdorney (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you have a good point there. Sometimes articles get hijacked by a single source, and it's happened before with this one (at one point this article might have almost been called "Eoin Neeson's view of the Easter Rising") and the reaction section seems to basically present Peter Beresford Ellis as the sole authority. I think it is better to start with the conventional wisdom view, that the public reacted largely negatively, and present the contrary views afterwords. I think a rewrite is in order. Are you volunteering? -R. fiend (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I'd prefer if it was a colaborative effort. I've been in some disputes on Irish-nationalist-type articles before and it's not pretty sometimes. How about we put together our evidence on the talk page and then decide what to write? (and yeah I agree, conventional view first and then contrary)Jdorney (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to go ahead and start writing feel free to; it's the Wiki way. I'll help out a bit, but good writing tends not to be done by committee; one person doing most of the writing and others adding, tweaking, and improving seems to yield pretty good results. If you think you might be adding something controversial you should probably discuss specifics first, but you've already done that and so far no one has balked. If you want to go beyond the immediate reaction of the Dublin public, and venture into the reaction to the execution, and go into the electoral victories of Sinn Fein and what they meant, then you're probably looking at more controversy, and more discussion. -R. fiend (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok so. I'll try to do it over the next week.Jdorney (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

TBH, I prefer the Jdorney way: put proposals on the talk page first. Otherwise, if one of you edits, and I revert, I'm open to the criticism of "why didn't you object when this was raised first?". I favour a re-write but let's be sure that we do have balance first. Scolaire (talk) 07:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, Jdorney briefly summed up what he wants to do, and unless he suddenly goes way off track I don't know how much detail we need. In fact, I prefer the section try to stay a bit on the brief side; this article is already too wordy in some parts, in my opinion. But I guess it would be a good idea for Jdorney to tell us what sources he intends to use for the rewrite.

Oh, as long as you're here (in a sense) Scolaire, can you weigh in on the "Tagged for (lack of) accuracy" section above? If 2loK is right, and the recent edits are BS, I'd like to see it fixed as soon as possible. I don't know much about it. Thanks. -R. fiend (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Rewrite

Ok folks, here's an outline of what I plan to do;

The conventional account of the aftermath of the Rising has always stressed the hostility of Dubliners to the captured rebels. Give egs, Dorothy McArdle, etc

Max Caulfield wrote in the 1960s that the crowds outside Richmond Barracks shouted Shoot the traitors!’, ‘Bayonet the bastards!’ at the rebel prisoners.(Caulfield p355)

Volunteer Robert Holland for example remembered “men, women and children used filthy expressions at us”... we heard all of their names being called out at intervals by the bystanders. My name was called out by some boys and girls I had gone to school with…This was the first time I ever appreciated British troops, as they undoubtedly saved us from being manhandled that evening (Annie Ryan, Witnesses, p135)

This view has since been disputed somewhat. Charles Townshend, writing in 2005, judged the reaction of Dubliners to be more ambivilent than universal hostility. "In many areas the reaction of civilians was puzzlement, they simply had no idea what was going on." Some, especially women, were "actively and viciously hostile to the Rising", while Thomas Johnson, the Labour leader thought there was, "no sign of sympathy for the rebels, but general admiration for their courage and strategy"(Townshend, Easter 1916, p265-268)

Peter Beresford Ellis has cited instances of support for the insurgents (edited version of what we have).

However, Fearghal McGarry, who has made the first thorough examination of witness statemens released in 2003 has cautioned against too radical a revision of the orthodox version. He writes that after the surrender, "the rebels were left in little doubt about the continued anger of many ordinary Dubliners...Rebels were hissed at, pelted with refuse, and denounced as 'murderers' and 'starvers of the people'." But, "some onlookers were cowed rather than hostile and it was obvious to the Volunteers that some of those who stood watching in silence were sympathetic."(McGarry, The Rising, Ireland Easter 1916 p252-256)

Speaking in an interview, (http://www.theirishstory.com/2010/05/05/ferghal-mcgarry-interview/ 8:40-9:55)McGarry has said, "the witness statements show unambiguosly that there was enourmous hostility to the rebels and while there are some accounts of some individuals showing support, by and large there are lots and lots of accounts of people spitting at,assaulting the rebels and so on".

Ok, sin e. Comments welcome. Jdorney (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. As long as the entire section is no longer a synopsis of what Peter Berresford Ellis says I'll probably be happy. Oh, not sure if it's worth including, but I seem to recall someone (Caulfield probably) mentioning that the Rising took place right around the 1 year anniversary of a WWI battle in which many Irish women lost their husbands (2nd Ypres?), so they saw it as a particular kick in the face. -R. fiend (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

R. fiend, get us the ref and we'll stick it in. Scolaire, what say you?Jdorney (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, let's try to remember that the article is about the Rising, not the historiography of the Rising. Just because the current text is of the "Foy and Barton say that Robbins said..." variety doesn't mean that the edited text has to be the same, only slanted a different way. I'm a great believer in the Joe Friday approach: "Just the facts, ma'am". The section can be considerably reduced in size without losing any of its value. Secondly, we need to clarify what exactly is under discussion: the section is currently headed "Reaction of the Irish public"; you have more accurately headed this section on the talk page "Reaction of the Dublin public"; but the description of abuse covers specific places - the places where the rebels were being brought to prison - and specific people - those who turned out to watch. Thirdly, let's be choosy about our sources. I listened to the Ferghal McGarry interview, and there wasn't anything at all new in it - Dublin people didn't like a rising that destroyed their homes, some people changed their view as the week went on, but there was a lot of abuse as the men were marched off at the end of the week. There are enough standard works on the Rising to tell us that. Finally, let's not stick in Ypres. The article is not a repository for "things I seem to remember reading somewhere once". Let's stick to the conventional account.

By the way, what happened to the bit where public opinion changed after the executions, prison sentences and internment camps? I could have sworn that used to be there. Scolaire (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well, if we're being choosy about our sources, McGarry's book is one of the better ones as its the first to exhaustively examine the Bureau of Military History Archives. Likewise Townshend's book is one of the most extensive works on the subject and Ryans contains straightforward accounts from the time from the military history archives. The McGarry interview contains nothing new you say, well it does in that he addresses the very issue we have on here - whether the idea of popular hostility to the rebels should be revised. McGarry found that it should not be and he is in a position to know. We don't have to cite the interview we can just cite his book instead - which although new is an authoritative work.

Secondly, "just the facts", we are not in a position here to make a new judgement, so giving hitorians' summaries of the facts is not 'historiography', it's the best we can do to inform a general reader.

Thirdly, evidence of hostility is not just confined to the immediate aftermath. Three examples; One. At Stephens Green on the first day the Citizen Army commandeered by force the vehicles of passers by to make barricades and shota man who resisted. James Stephens, an eyewitness says, "At that moment the Volunteers were hated". Two. At the GPO, Ernie O'Malley writes that the local women told the Volunteers, "I hope the Tommies come and beat you bloody heads off". Three at the SOuth Dublin Union, the Volunteers had to club and shoot their way thorugh an angry crowd to get into the buildings. And there are many more examples. (btw, I hope you realise that I'm not making a political point here, this is not about imposing a revisionist view on the Rising but on making it reflect the work done on it.)

Re the change in opinion, agree there should be a section on this.

Can you propose an alternative wording if you don't like the above proposed one? Jdorney (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems we're mostly in basic agreement here. I'm all for reducing the section in size, as it seems to have grown unwieldy and could stand to be made more succinct. (I'm impartial to inclusion of Ypres; on one hand it can give some context for the anger of the war widows, and at most would only add a sentence, but I also realize it's not especially significant.) I think a good approach is to start by addressing how the reaction to the rising was mostly negative, at least at first, and we seem to have plenty of sources supporting this (obviously opposition was not unanimous, but was the overriding reaction, not without reason), then briefly go into Ellis and company's view that the negative was overplayed and the positive was stifled (or whatever). We don't need to go into extreme detail here, as this is an encyclopedia article, not a thesis.

As for the public opinion after the executions, it seems to me this is much more of a vexed question, and is obviously closely connected to the forthcoming Sinn Fein electoral victories. It's been a while since I've read about this, but it seems to me the views range from, on one extreme, the executions completely changed public opinion and turned most of the nation into ardent republicans, and on the other end, while the executions were seen as heavy handed, public opinion did not fundamentally change, and Sinn Fein's victory was merely a result of them being the party that was most representative of the public, particularly in regards to partition. Again, this is just off the top of my head right now.

Oh, and Jdorney, I'm familiar with the first 2 examples of gave of public anger during the rising, but I don't recall the incident at the South Dublin Union. What source is that from? -R. fiend (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Re SDU, Fearghal Mc, p143, "C Company's attempts to enter Roe's Distillerry were blocked by an irate mob; 'we were practically attacked by the rabble in Bow Lane, and I will never forget it as long as I live. "Leave down your fucking rifles" they shouted, "and we'll beat the shit out of you", They were very menacing to our lads..." "The women spat at us and the men tried to pull down the barricades" until they clubbed several of them into unconsciousness'. Also at Jacobs, (p142)a Volunteer shot a woman who was about to strike him, "I just remember her face and head disapear and she went down like a sack".

Re the aftermath, my understanding is that post-1917 SF were closely associated with the Rising in the public perception and it was a profitable thing for them to use in campaigns. Also public opinion was effected not only by the executions but also by the arrest of 3,000 activists afterwards and by the British Army's killing of civlians in Dublin during the Rising at Rathmines and North King Street. So to the best of my knowledge there is a consensus that there really was a shift in public perception afterwards. Of course you wold also have to mention things like conscription and partition. Jdorney (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, yes, conscription was absolutely a factor. Am I remembering wrong or did SF initially largely run on an anti-conscription platform? -R. fiend (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about that, but they certainly headed the anti-conscription campaign, they probably ran on that platfrom in by-elections of 1917 but by the general election of 1918 the war was over and it was no longer a factor.Jdorney (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to the earlier elections. Obviously by the 1918 general election it wasn't a factor (except perhaps in that it earned them some populist credibility). -R. fiend (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh absolutely. It was probably the single biggest factor in them burying the IPP, who were too closely identified with support for the war effort. But I wouldn't underestimate the role of the Risng either. It's aftermath produced a generation of young, zealous activists, Ernie O'Malley, Eoin O'Duffy, Liam Lynch etc etc. Jdorney (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's get back on track here. Conscription and the 1918 elections are a whole 'nother topic and we don't need to get into that right now. Re "giving historians' summaries of the facts is not 'historiography'": giving summaries is exactly what I proposed. Giving details of historians' criticism of other historians is historiography, and it's what we don't need. Re the McGarry book, I'm not disputing it as a reliable source, it was specifically the radio interview I was talking about. What I would propose to write is something brief and to the point, like this:

• The rebels encountered much hostility from Dubliners, and prisoners were subject to both verbal and physical abuse as they were taken to the barracks (McGarry, Foy and Barton, or Townshend). On the other hand there was a degree of admiration, and even sympathy, in certain sections of the populace (Ellis, Townshend). However, the number and swiftness of the executions, combined with the arrests and deportations and revelations about the British Army's killing of civilians in Rathmines and North King Street, led to a surge of support for the rebels; freed internees returning from England received a hero’s welcome on their arrival in Ireland (pick your source).

I think that's a fair summary of what the historians say, and succeeds in presenting a neutral point of view without the tedious details about points of disagreement between historians. From the point of view of informing the reader about the Rising, I don't feel that anything more is necessary. Scolaire (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

A not unreasonable summary. I'd suggest, however, that the third clause of the third sentence should read "led to a surge of retrospective support for the rebels". Mooretwin (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

An interesting suggestion. My reading of history, though, is that the surge of support was for the living, breathing rebels and for the physical force tradition, as evidenced by the crowds that welcomed them home from internment. There was also a retrospective veneration of the dead leaders, but that is a part of "Legacy" rather than "Aftermath". Scolaire (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What limited input i can add or cooroborate to this is that sympathy for the rebels as far as i understand from Irish history books only started due to the executions - before that the captured rebels were jeered by the local population Northern Star 10:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, how about "retrospective surge of support for the rebels' actions". Is that clearer? Those who did not support their actions at the time, began to support their actions retrospectively, as a result of the executions, etc. Mooretwin (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

But isn't that a tautology? A "surge" (i.e. increase) of support after the event is necessarily retrospective. Scolaire (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily a tautology because it is possible for retrospective support (support after the event) to surge. But I see what you mean. Mooretwin (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Would "The result of the executions lead to a surge in support for the rebels and their actions" do? Northern Star 21:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Now THAT's a tautology ... the RESULT of the executions LED TO a surge in support! Mooretwin (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops i meant led. Would "the executions resulted in a surge in support" escape claims of tautology? Northern Star 22:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It would. Mooretwin (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

In that respect would "the executions resulted in a surge of support for the rebels and their actions" do for the rewrite? Northern Star 22:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Splitting hairs there gentlemen I think. Scolaire, broadly agree with your outline but would also include something on the IPP and the Catholic Church's stances. Both of these institutions condemned the Risng but also the executions and arrests afterwards, which showed the ambivilence that existed even in the most conservative elements of Irish nationalism towards the rebellion. Jdorney (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. We seem to have a consensus so you may as well go ahead and do it. Scolaire (talk) 06:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do it as soon as I can. Jdorney (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, done. Jdorney (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks pretty good to me. -R. fiend (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

New Section needed

Now that we've re-doe the "reaction" section (though I'll wait for rections before closing that subject), we need a section on the longer term reaction - ie the swing behind support for the rebels, the reaction to the executions and arrests.

I think this should have it's own section as it's different from the immediate reaction to the Rising on the ground in Dublin.

Or should there be a para on this in the reactions section?

Jdorney (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The re-write is a huge improvement on what was there before, and it pretty well halved the size - although Rashers Tierney's edit has increased it again a bit. However, I still feel it is too long and too detailed. There is a bit of a fad at the moment on WP for blockquotes. I don't really believe that there is a need for any of the quotes that are in this section at the moment. For instance, "Canadian journalist Frederick McKenzie found that there was a great deal of sympathy for the rebels in the poorer parts of the city, particularly after the surrender" would be perfectly adequate. Better still, "There was a great deal of sympathy for the rebels in the poorer parts of the city, particularly after the surrender.<ref>Frederick Arthur MacKenzie, The Irish Rebellion: What happened and Why, cited in The Impact of the 1916 Rising: Among the Nations...</ref>". Just the facts, ma'am.

The new section heading, "Reaction of the Dublin public during Easter Week" is not appropriate for a subsection of "Aftermath". The specific incidents of confrontation and the shooting of civilians on Easter Monday should be dealt with elsewhere in the article. Rough behaviour and the shooting of civilians can then be briefly mentioned here as one of the reasons for public hostility, along with destruction of property and disruption of daily life.

Finally, to answer your question, there shouldn't be a new section for the change in public opinion. There should be a single section, entitled simply "Public reaction", with one paragraph of about 150 words summarising the current version of the immediate reaction in Dublin, and one paragraph of similar length on the longer-term reaction of the Irish public to British actions. Scolaire (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The section has been greatly improved and I agree that the current title is a little 'off'. However, rather than move it I suggest renaming it to 'Contemporary reactions of Dublin residents'. On the issue of blockquotes, this is a useful way to give a voice to the specific subject of this section without the fog of interpretation. Primary sources in general should be be included with caution, but this is an occasion when first hand observations allow appreciation of an extraordinary social/political change over a short period of time. The quotes included indicate a much more nuanced and conflicted contemporary view than the simplistic narrative of 'all changed utterly' only subsequent to the executions, (undoubtedly these resulted in a vociferous public backlash through newspapers etc. against the status quo). Presentation here could do with some beautifying but I don't agree that it is still too long. RashersTierney (talk) 12:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Scolaire, I feel I've done my bit and won't be re-writing this section agin. But I too like brevity, and your suggestions make sense, so feel free to edit further. Rashers, that's a good quote but it is a little wordy and off the point. Scolaire makes a good point re the need for brevity and clarity over detail. Could the quote be summarised and the text put into footnotes? (eg. as was done with the quotes from O'Malley) Jdorney (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of text in the footnotes at all. To my mind direct quotes are for books, not for encyclopaedia articles and definitely not for footnotes. Looking back at the last seven days of featured articles, only Tōru Takemitsu has blockquotes in the body of the article - and they are quotes from the subject himself - and only Jesus College Boat Club (Oxford) has a (single, brief) quote in the footnotes. I probably will have a go at editing the section, only not on a Sunday evening. Scolaire (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually I like that suggestion, summarise all the quotes, so I'm going to have one last go. Jdorney (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I like that much better. Scolaire (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

More re-writes are needed

The Easter Monday section is far, far too detailed, with micro accounts of the first day, while the following section is not detailed enough.

The same goes for the 'Rising outside of Dublin' section which has a big ugly tag on it for good measure.

These three sections (Easter Monday, Tusday to Saturday and Outside Dublin) also need to be re-written imo. Jdorney (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that One Night in Hackney (aka 2 lines of K) has said that he is intending to re-write the whole article (see here), which has left the rest of us reluctant to do any major editing in the meantime. Correspondence on my talk page in the last week indicates that he is still working on it, but we have no expected completion date and no sandbox where we might monitor progress. But I agree with all you say, and I may make a start in a few weeks time if nothing is forthcoming before that. Scolaire (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Getting impatient here. Any sign of that re-write? Jdorney (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I say go ahead and tackle it, if that's what you'd like to do. I've grown old waiting for edits to certain articles that I was assured were imminent. It's a wiki, so there should be no problem with editing by any interested and knowledgeable party. Hopefully Hackney, Scolaire, and others who have been active on this page will contribute as well. I, for one, agree at least on the overly detailed synopsis of Monday. Trying to read the section in the mindset of a theoretical reader who is reading about this event for the first time, it does seem to throw around a lot of proper nouns that presumably would mean nothing to the average person, and which often lack much context. This can lead to the significant players getting mixed in with the minor figures, leading to potential confusion and noun overload. That's my opinion anyway.

While we're on the subject, specifically regarding the Rising Outside Dublin section, no one seems to have addressed the points made in the "Tagged for (lack of) accuracy" section above. Anyone care to weigh in on that? -R. fiend (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I still don't know what the issues are, and it looks like nobody else does either. You asked a number of questions that went unanswered. I'd say if you're going to re-write, just re-write; use your own sources, make it accurate and verifiable, and don't worry about four-month-old controversies. Scolaire (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no desire to rewrite the Rising outside Dublin section; as I said I really know little about it. The issue seems to be its accuracy which takes the form of a dispute between two editors, neither of whom seem to want to comment. Perhaps I should remove the accuracy tag, since the edits are cited and no contradicting facts have been presented?

As for the table idea, I think it's pretty good, though we should still keep a brief summary of deployment. I'm not good at tables either; every time I've needed one I just copy/pasted someone else's and changed the information within. One of us could probably easily do that here. -R. fiend (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

A thought has occurred to me about Easter Monday. A lot of that section is taken up with the deployment of Republican forces. Could that be replaced by a table? The table headings could be: Army (i.e. Volunteers or Citizen Army); Battalion or Company; Senior officer (where the names could be prefaced with Commandant or Captain); and Position. The map could be moved up the page to show the positions. The relevant positions would be (Volunteer unless otherwise stated): 1st Battalion - Four Courts; D Coy., 1st Batt. - Mendicity Institute; 2nd Batt. - Jacob's; 3rd Batt. - Boland's; 4th Batt. - Sth Dublin Union; Citizen Army (main) - Stephen's Green; Citizen Army (detachment) - City Hall; E Coy., ? Batt. - GPO.

Only trouble is, I am hopeless at making tables! Does either of you (or anybody else reading this) have the skills and the interest to do it? Scolaire (talk) 09:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Scolaire, I'll have look at tables. Sounds like a good idea. Jdorney (talk) 09:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite of Easter Monday section done. Comments welcome. I moved the original to its own article, as I felt it was too long and detailed for a section. Have also re-written the 'rising outside dublin' section. Nex stop, refing up and expanding the 'tuesday to saturday' section. Jdorney (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look when I have time, but I'm not sure a separate article on Easter Monday is the best way to go. Some of the detail might be too excessive whether in its own article or its parent, but moreover I'm not convinced that's the best way to break out the information. Maybe an article covering the military forces and combat in general, which could also cover events of the rest of the week in details beyond what this article should hold? To me, since Monday was not really a separate battle in most cases, division by subject rather than chronology might work better. As I said, I'll examine it more and ask for other opinions. -R. fiend (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I kinda agree with R. fiend. I'm flattered that my deathless prose is now an article of its own, but I honestly expected nothing more than the kind of editing down that Jdorney has kindly done. Maybe, short-term, the best thing would be to move the new article to Talk:Easter Rising/First Day of the Easter Rising. The content would be there, then, and when this article finally starts to look like a good article, we could discuss what, if anything, is to be done with it.

Easter Monday is now of a decent length and well referenced. Format-wise, I feel there are too many short paragraphs, and taking out half the line breaks would make it flow much better.

I haven't really examined the Rising Outside Dublin, but I assume you have dealt with the disputed content so well done on that. Scolaire (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I've re-written three sections now, Easter Monday, Tuesday to Saturday (I think this section should have a better title btw, how about 'Battle in Dublin'?) and the Rising outside Dublin. People are welcome to make any changes they feel are necessary but can they flag them here first? Thanks. Jdorney (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"Tuesday to Saturday" was what was left of the original narrative after I edited it down and expanded Easter Monday. In my youth and enthusiasm I was going to re-write it as five sections: Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Then I realised I had made Monday far too long, and that took all the wind out of my sails. The rest is history, as they say, at least until this week. I would still ideally like to have a section for each day, of roughly equal length, using the established sources to show the highlights of each day, while at the same time showing the progression from the initial seizure of the posts to the final surrender. Will I manage to do it myself? Who knows, it could still happen. Kudos to yorself, though, for making the article readable again. Scolaire (talk) 10:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I think we could safely consider this section "resolved", and open any further discussion under a new heading. I now propose to do just that. Scolaire (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

On the day by day thing, I've been meaning to complete this User:Jdorney/Timeline of the Easter Rising

Could do the job maybe? Jdorney (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, I was thinking more on the lines of:

• Tuesday "...Lowe...arrived from the Curragh Camp in the early hours of Tuesday 25 April. City Hall was taken from the rebel unit that had attacked Dublin Castle on Tuesday morning...the rebel position at St Stephen's Green, held by the Citizen Army under Michael Mallin, was made untenable after the British placed snipers and machine guns in the Shelbourne Hotel and surrounding buildings. As a result, Mallin's men retreated to the Royal College of Surgeons building..."
• Wednesday "...Reinforcements were sent to Dublin from England, and disembarked at Kingstown...Heavy fighting occurred at the rebel-held positions around the Grand Canal as these troops advanced towards Dublin. The Sherwood Foresters were repeatedly caught in a cross-fire trying to cross the canal at Mount Street. Seventeen Volunteers were able to severely disrupt the British advance..."
• Thursday "at North King Street, behind the Four Courts...the British...tried to take a well-barricaded rebel position. By the time of the surrender, the South Staffordshire Regiment under Colonel Taylor had advanced only 150 yeards down the street at a cost of 11 dead and 28 wounded. The enraged troops broke into the houses along the street..."

And so on. It's not consistent with Hackney's "Foy and Barton" approach, but then again, neither is the current version. Scolaire (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well obviously the way I wrote it, more like an overview than a chronology, is what I'd prefer, but I'll go along with the consensus.Jdorney (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Chronology and overview are not incompatible. As currently written, it's in chronological order anyway. But this is just for discussion. There's no need to change anything now, and no doubt things will be changed in the future anyway. It's the nature of the beast. Scolaire (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed indeed. Jdorney (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

'90th Anniversary of the 1916 Rising'

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)

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)

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)

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)

The rising was pro-German

It is absolutely essential the article mentions the fact that the proclamation praised the Germans as the rebels' "gallant allies", because this proves the uprising was treasonable. (92.12.28.15 (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC))

So why was only Casement convicted of treason? Most sources see the various publications issues by Pearse and co during the Rising as fiction anyway. The text you added was not even close to being neutral either. O Fenian (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Well they didn't want to execute de Valera because he was a US citizen. Martin Gilbert's book is certainly a reliable source and in any case the fact that the proclamation praised the Germans as their allies needs to be mentioned. (92.11.115.198 (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC))

What does de Valera have to do with anything? Casement was the only person charged with treason. I notice the flowery quote does not mention that hundreds of thousands of Irishmen refused to fight in a foreign war? O Fenian (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

De Valera has everything to do with it, since he was one of the leaders of the uprising. The fact that some Irish tried to avoid opposing the enemy does not change the fact that the Easter Rising was openly pro-German. (92.11.115.198 (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC))

Would that be the same de Valera you claimed was pro-Hitler? O Fenian (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh? (92.11.115.198 (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC))

Mentioning Martin Gilbert is specious, since he is actually directly quoting a single "historian" - Robert Kee. Kee's quote is "It referred to 'gallant Allies in Europe' who were supporting Ireland, thereby blandly dismissing the fact that the flower of Ireland's manhood had been fighting those allies in Europe for the past twenty months". That is not an objective quote, it is flowery, and ignores that far more Irishmen were not willing to fight a foreign war. Pearse expected the Germans to land an expeditionary force to aid the Rising, the "allies" did nothing more than supply arms, which were either pre-war (Howth gun-running) or failed to arrive. The quote of "gallant allies" from a primary source does not accurately detail the facts on the ground, and neither does the biased quote. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence that any person was charged with treason other than Casement, despite your claims to the contrary. O Fenian (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether some Irishmen were unwilling to defend themselves from the enemy is irrelevant to the fact that the uprising was vocally pro-German. That is why de Valera had to keep IRA terrorists imprisoned during World War II, since any attack in the north could have been viewed as siding with the Germans and would have given Churchill the excuse he needed to overrun all of the Irish Free State. (92.11.115.198 (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC))

Sources? O Fenian (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You jump from a specious accusation that the Rising was pro-German to an argument about De Valera and World War II. You cannot even seem to remember what you are talking about. My suspicion is that your intention is disruption and that continuing this discussion is a waste of everyone's time. Besides, the Germans never invaded Ireland, never outlawed the people's religion, never murdered Irishmen and women in their homes, did not burn down Cork City. The Brits did all that. So, how were the Germans the enemies of the Irish? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's try to keep this from becoming a political argument and just take a look at the facts. The Proclamation did refer to "gallant allies in Europe" without mentioning Germany by name, but it's pretty clear who they are referring to. How significant this is is subject to debate, but should be completely dismissed without discussion. Also, the rebels did try to get guns and other aid from Germany; the fact that the British were able to prevent isn't relevant to their intent, and does not exonerate them. Comparing those that faced a Court Martial with Casement, who faced a criminal trial, might not be completely valid. I don't know exactly how courts martial in Britain work, so maybe someone with more expertise on this can give input. What exactly were the others charged with? A quick glance through a few books didn't seem to give specifics. Isn't taking up arms against the government a pretty good working definition of treason? I agree that Valera and WWII has nothing to do with this and we should stick to the topic at hand. What do other people have to say about this? R. fiend (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

My point, as above, is that while Proclamation may refer to "gallant Allies" Pearse and Connolly may have had a slightly different opinion due to the non-arrival of the expeditionary force. The German aid is mentioned earlier in the article, so I do not see the benefit in quoting a couple of words from the Proclamation for reasons which are now unknown, since the insinuation attached to those words was not added back at the same time. I also recall someone's court martial, which one currently escapes me but I can check later if needed. They totally denied the allegation that they were aiding Germany, their intent was not pro-German but pro-Ireland. O Fenian (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing that the purpose of the Rising was to aid Germany, but that isn't relevant. The US didn't fight WWII to aid the Soviet Union, but they were still allies. If this is simply a question of inclusion of a sentence about the proclamation in the section on Easter Monday then fair enough. It looks out of place to me, but it should be discussed on its merits, and shouldn't devolve into an argument about who burned down Cork City or what Dev did during World War II. If some editors think the Germany link is being glossed over and treason should be mentioned directly then that should be discussed as well. -R. fiend (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That is half the problem, the IP editor seemingly believes a flowery quote from Kee makes it treason. O Fenian (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think their actions make it treason. Are we arguing it isn't? I don't care much. I don't have a horse in this race and I think the whole notion of treason is stupid, but I think rebelling against the government and conspiring with an enemy to do so fits the bill pretty well. Anyway, we're getting off topic again, I guess. The questionable edit is reverted, so I guess we can let the matter rest unless something further is brought up (which wouldn't surprise me). -R. fiend (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Easter Rising during World War I was clearly just as treasonable as the rebellion of 1798 during the Napoleonic Wars. The "gallant allies" quotation absolutely needs to be in the article. (92.11.242.106 (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC))

The first editor in this thread says the German connection "proves the Rising was treasonable". Is he/she for real? Treasonable to those British and their masterrace anti-Irish colonial claim to rule over our country, I bloody well hope so! The idea that Irish people fighting for Irish freedom could be "treasonable" to the British colonial occupiers is so seriously in breach of Misplaced Pages NPOV it defies belief that it is being entertained in this article. Irish independence depends upon being "treasonable" to all foreigners who claim a right to rule over us. We have no loyalty to any of them, least of all the British masterrace which has raped our culture and country for centuries. "Treasonable" Jesus! 86.46.17.237 (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

St Patrick's Day 1916

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)

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)

Executions?

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)KD Tries Again

The executions of Irish soldiers in the British army during WWI, and its effect on pro-revolution sentiment

Opposition to the War was growing at home in Ireland, one of the reasons for this was the blatant anti-Irish racism that was endemic in the British army at that time. On average one British soldier out of every 3,000 of their troops was court martialed and executed by firing squad during the war, compared to the much higher, one out of every 600 Irish Soldiers.

I added the above paragraph only to find it was later removed. Is it honestly the mission of the editors of this page to remove such relevant material because there is insufficent evidence available - to suggest that the full extent of this mistreatment was known to the public? This seems hard to believe as letters from Irish Soldiers to family back home are full with details. Here is some more relevant information. An Ed Carthy reported story on the execution of 26 Irish soldiers serving in the British army during WWI.

For the benefit of everyone else, see this. Although I didn't remove the addition, the problems that I can see are two-fold. Firstly "blatant anti-Irish racism" is your own commentary, and secondly and most importantly, there isn't any evidence that the disproportionate number of Irishmen executed was publicly known at the time, therefore there's no evidence that it can have affected public opinion. If public opinion was affected it should be easy enough to provide sources saying that, enough books have been written about the period in question after all.... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Irish enthusiasm to enlist in the British Army had indeed waned by the second half of the war - so had British. That was why conscription was brought in in Britain (and, as we know, there were abortive moves to bring it in in Ireland). The shooting of (some - only about 10% of executions were actually carried out) deserters was not, at the time, anything like the cause celebre it became in the 1990s.Paulturtle (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

1. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20050807/ai_n14861581/
2. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/PARDONED%3b+26+Irish+WWI+soldiers+shot+at+dawn+finally+get+justice.-a0154113694

Vandalization of links to Rebel Heart

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)

If nobody has any objection, I will restore the links TonyMath (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Discuss what?

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)

Say what? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 18:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

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 18:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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 20:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 20:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Getting back to the point

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)

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)

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)

What other names are used often enough in reliable sources to be candidate for lede mentions? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

How about the ones mentioned in this post which I already referred back to? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 19:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Qualification like "Easter Rising, known in contemporary British reports as the Sinn Fein Rebellion"? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

"British rule"

Germany

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)

Agreed, though as Germany sent that shipload of arms it should be noted that they were willing to arm the rebellion. Mabuska 00:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

Public surge in support ...

I think this edit was correct but it just brought to my eye the statement that an outcome of the Rising was a "public surge in support for Sinn Féin at 1918 general election." As the article itself notes, the shift to Sinn Féin in the 1918 election can be attributed to a whole load of things (e.g. the Irish Convention and the conscription crisis).

Any objections to trimming that line out? --RA (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd lose it. It's discussed in the article, as it should be. Trying to cram anything and everything into an infobox as an irritating habit of some. Besides, it's at best an indirect result, and infoboxes should be reserved for direct and clear facts. Nuances should be left to the body. -R. fiend (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The 1918 election is properly covered in the "Aftermath" section. It's not a "result" as such. Scolaire (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Less sure, it was the point at which support shifted significantly - OK that was probably the reaction to the executions but ...----Snowded 23:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a fair point, Snowded. Having said that, we probably need to distinguish between a direct result – a shift in public opinion towards republicanism – and an indirect result i.e. the Sinn Féin election victory two and a half years later. Scolaire (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

There's lots of reasons for the shifts that took place (to republicanism, to separatism, to Sinn Féin, etc.). The Labour Party choosing to step aside, the Somme, a changed international mood (e.g. Versaille and the Fourteen Points), IPP support for partition, etc. Sinn Féin's policy shift from monarchism to republicanism in 1917. The conscription crisis really cannot be forgotten about. Sinn Féin lost three by-elections in 1918 before the conscription crisis. Brian Feeney has the following to say about Representation of the People Act 1918 in Sinn Féin a Hundred Turbulent Years:

In 1918, as a result of electoral reform, all men over twenty-one and women over thirty had the vote. This provision almost trebled the electorate from 700,000 to just over 1.9 million. ... It was this new electorate that gave Sinn Féin its massive endorsement. It is often overlooked that the IPP's candidates, even in contests in the west and southwest, actually sustained the party's vote quite well. But the old party was simply not attractive to the new young voters, mainly women, and was swamped by them ...

December 1918 also was first the test of the IPP after decade of incredible change. Twenty-five constituencies may have been granted to Sinn Féin unopposed, but the 1918 election was also the first time since 1910 that 63 constituencies had been contested at all. In time since 1910, there was the formation of the UVF, the Curragh Incident, the Home Rule Act, etc. 1916 was just one of a maelstrom of things that happened 10 years that has today's decade being (rightly) called a decade of centenaries. --RA (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you've understood what I have said. I've already agreed with you that what happened in 1917-18 should not be considered in the "Result" field of the infobox, and I was repeating that point to Snowded. Where I think he has a point is the shift in public opinion in 1916, as evidenced by the flood of pictures, badges, pamphlets etc. celebrating the Rising's leaders, the welcome for released prisoners, and so on. There was a clear "surge in support" there, and it was obviously a direct result of the Rising, since the Sinn Féin Árd-fheis, the conscription crisis and the increased franchise were all in the future. Come to think of it, none of that is dealt with in the article, so by my own logic (above) it should not be in the infobox. But I think it should be added to the article, and its inclusion in the infobox would be justified. Scolaire (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not too sure that the "surge in support in 1916" can be said to be a result of the Rising. Public opinion on the Rising changed in the months following it. But you cannot accredit a change in public opinion on the Rising to the Rising itself. I agree it's important all of this in the article.

Anyway, we're good to remove the line that's in there now from the infobox? --RA (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The executions of the leaders were ordered by the Irish Field Marshal Lord French, and they were entirely justified as the rebels had murdered civilians and policemen. It was not until the Conscription Crisis and the revolutions in Europe that the real surge in support for Sinn Fein began. (92.7.29.85 (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC))

The executions (or at least the scope of them) are widely considered a fundamental mistake the British made, true, and it certainly moved many to go from condemnation of the rebels to condemnation of the government, but that's not the same as causing Sinn Fein victories in the following elections. I think that phrase should be removed from the infobox. It's wordy, it's not a direct result, it's not a military result (it's a military infobox), it's questionable how much of a relation there is between the two, and when it comes to questionable information it's better to omit than include. We've got the issue covered in the article itself. I mean, we don't include World War II is a result of World War I in the latter's infobox. It looks like there's a rough consensus that it doesn't belong, so would it be agreeable to take it out now? -R. fiend (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

If there is no agreement on the rewording then I think it should be removed entirely. The suppression of the rebellion and the execution of the leaders were the only direct results of the failed Rising. (92.7.29.85 (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC))

Well, I have stated my views re "surge of support". If you're including me in your "rough consensus" I don't think you should. However, I will say no more. It is between you and Snowded whether it stays or goes. Scolaire (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

So that means we have R.fiend and a new single purpose edit warring IP account for removal and me against? Thats not a consensus for change yet R.fiend and you should self-revert. The WWII to WWI point is a red herring and the statement that the executions were justified (aside from indicating a PoV) is nothing to do with whether the events were a trigger point or not for the support for Sinn Fein. Another solution is simply to remove it. The outcome as stated following the removal is too simplistic ----Snowded 00:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

What are you saying exactly? Can't quite parse that paragraph. We have at least myself, RA, and random ip questioning the validity of the inclusion in the infobox, and Scolaire at one point agreeing with its removal (though somewhat ambiguously). Why should inclusion be the default? It's better to exclude a true statement than include a false one. It seems to me the Result section is for the direct military result, i.e. who won the engagement and what that directly resulted in. We could list a bunch of indirect results if we wanted, including the leveling of sections of Dublin, but we confine it to the direct, indisputable examples. We cover the 1918 election in the article, where it can be addressed with the nuance it requires. The infobox is not the place to address election results 2 years later. If you think it needs to be included make a strong case for it. -R. fiend (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, R. fiend, if you're going to link to my "ambiguous agreement" please link to the right one, where I said that I do believe that there was a shift in public opinion in 1916. The lead says (albeit it was me that wrote it back in 2007) that "it succeeded in bringing physical force republicanism back to the forefront of Irish politics." That is a notable result, whereas the destruction of buildings is the inevitable consequence of any urban warfare. My position is that the 1918 election is too remote, but the "surge of support" is not. To that extent you can count me on Snowded's side if you insist on counting heads. Scolaire (talk) 11:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

But did the Rising cause a surge in support? Certainly, it did not immediately have much public support. Public opinion changed later — but as an outcome of what? The executions is one thing that is frequently pointed to as a cause of the change in public opinion. Example:

"Before 1916 the constitutional tradition was more prominent in Irish political culture. Indeed, the Easter Rising of 1916 was launched by the IRB with little popular support. It was the events following the Easter Rising, in particular the clumsy British reprisals, that mobilized public support in Ireland for the revolutionary tradition." (Theo Farrell, Terry Terriff, The Sources of Military Change: Culture, Politics, Technology, p.84)

Or:

The Easter Rising was suppressed five days later, leaving 132 British soldiers, 64 rebels and 230 civilians dead. Crowds heckled surviving rebels as they were led off to Kilmainham jail; most of the Irish public seems to share the government's view that the Easter Rising was treasonous, a stab in the back when Britain was suffering terrible casualties in France.
Yet what seemed a humiliating defeat in 1916 turned into a full-fleded and widely supported war of independence three years later. It may be that in retrospect, the ability of 1,200 Volunteers to inflict meaningful casualties encourged the view that a more widely based insurrection could be successful. Although by standards of wartime, executing 15 rebel leaders seemed to many British people a proportionate and just response, it mobilized the Irish community at home and in the United States." (Margaret Scanlan, Culture And Customs of Ireland p.20)

But what then for the info box? Will we include a outcome (public support) of an outcome (the executions) of an outcome (the surrender of the rebels) of the Rising? The immediate outcome is all that is necessary. Although a link to "See Aftermath section." would be fine by me. --RA (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Well for a start you could set an example by not editing until there is agreement. To say the outcome was a simple victory is a nonsense, it set off a whole set of consequences. Given that It might be better to simply leave it blank, or just say "see aftermath" ----Snowded 13:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

In a military sense, the outcome of the Easter Rising was that simple: the rebels surrendered and all but one of the leaders were executed.

You are the only person saying the election result of 1918 should be given as an outcome of the Rising in 1916. There were many reasons Sinn Féin won that election and why the IPP lost. I think you are confusing a change in public sentiment towards the Rising (which can be linked to the executions) with the manifold reasons why Sinn Féin (a monarchist and constitutionalist party in 1916) won an election almost three years later. --RA (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't just a military event RA and please don't misrepresent me I have supported the inclusion of some reference to a surge of support. I'm not aware I referenced the 1918 election. I have also suggested that we simply referennce the aftermath section (building on your edit) as an alternative ----Snowded 15:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

This entire thread is to do with a reference to the 1918 election as an outcome in the military conflict info box. That reference has been removed. Apparently, now, unanimously. --RA (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

There is now apparent unanimity regarding the 1918 election, but demonstrably no unanimity regarding change in public opinion. "This entire thread" is headed "Public surge in support ...", not "1918 election". In any event, replacing content with "see Aftermath" is the worst possible outcome. The infobox is for giving info, not for telling readers to read the article. Every field of every infobox could be replaced with "see X" if we were going to go down that route! The disputed text should be replaced with an agreed text or else removed. The current version is ludicrous. Scolaire (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, both the WWI and WWII infoboxes have links to a later part of the article in the "results" section, though they do it differently, and likely from concerns about space. But there is a precedent. Not that I think this current version is great or anything. -R. fiend (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Both the WWI and WWII infoboxes have four or more results in that field, with a (nicely formatted) link to avoid cluttering up the infobox. That is sensible, this one is silly. Scolaire (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

And talking of clutter, the "Belligerents" field is now a joke, too. "In the name of"? Why not add God and the dead generations while we're at it? Scolaire (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The belligerents section has been growing for a while. Personally, I think just the Volunteers and Citizen Army would be fine. I think there was a suggestion about including the IRA a while back, but I guess that was rejected, though I don't remember much about it (or even if I just imagined it). -R. fiend (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to open a thread on this below. --RA (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

@Scolaire, RE: "In any event, replacing content with 'see Aftermath' is the worst possible outcome. The infobox is for giving info, not for telling readers to read the article." Including a link to "See the 'Aftermath' section" is suggested content for this field per the documentation at {{Infobox military conflict}}. --RA (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It also says "It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation...", so I'm going to revert to my original position of taking out the "surge" and not replacing it with anything. Scolaire (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Soft protection?

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)

I for one support protection 100%. Scolaire (talk) 11:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Support protection and/or topic ban, this campaign is getting tedious. Brocach (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

Belligerents

The following comments, I've copied form above:

And talking of clutter, the "Belligerents" field is now a joke, too. "In the name of"? Why not add God and the dead generations while we're at it? Scolaire (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The belligerents section has been growing for a while. Personally, I think just the Volunteers and Citizen Army would be fine. I think there was a suggestion about including the IRA a while back, but I guess that was rejected, though I don't remember much about it (or even if I just imagined it). -R. fiend (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest only the Irish Volunteers, the Irish Citizen Army and Cumann na mBan be given as the belligerents.

The Volunteers were infiltrated by the IRB and members of Fianna Éireann were also members of the Volunteers, but the action was (at a superficial level) a Volunteer one together with the Irish Citizen Army and Cumann na mBan. Members of the Hibernian Rifles joined in the fighting an individual capacity after it had started. However, even then, strictly speaking, it was a fringe of the Volunteers acting against orders.

The "IRA" didn't exist at the time (though the initial were daubed on the wall of the College of Surgeons). However, Pearse did describe himself (in writing) in his capacity as leader of the insurection as "Commander in Chief of the Army of the Irish Republic". --RA (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It has always been my position that only the Irish Volunteers and the Irish Citizen Army should be there. Cumann na mBan was an auxilliary of the Volunteers; unlike women members of the ICA they were not allowed to take part in combat. I waged a long and unsuccessful campaign years ago against those who said "no, you have to put these in because they're in the books", and eventually I gave up. I also very strongly feel that the DMP should be removed from the other side. Constable O'Brien drawing his pistol does not make that force a combatant. The first thing the authorities did was to withdraw the DMP from the streets of Dublin.

My other problem, though, is the flags. The current setup looks like bunting at a parade. The Combatants field "is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict." In this case there were two: the Irish (or the "rebels") and the British. Smaller groups "may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding". Including a number of organisations may improve understanding, but including a confusion of flags only causes confusion. There should be a single tricolour (those who came out were fighting for a republic, so the green harp is not appropriate) followed by the Irish Volunteers and the Irish Citizen Army, just as there is a single union jack on the other side. Scolaire (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Scolaire on the Irish side, However, I feel the DMP should remain as they suffered casualties. Also, should the British Navy be included by virtue of the Helega attacking rebel positions? Finnegas (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No and no. Suffering casualties does not make somebody a combatant, otherwise civilians would be included as combatants on every military conflict infobox, especially this one where civilian casualties exceeded military ones. No source that I am aware of says that the British Admiralty was directly involved in the Rising, though presumably their permission was asked before Helga was deployed. Scolaire (talk) 09:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with everything Scolaire said. I included Comman na mBan above becuase they are included in the sources (and were part of the conspiracy). However, their role in the Rising was as Red Cross workers, not as belligerents.

I would even be cautious about including the RIC. The RIC were attacked. They return returned fire and tried to arrest the law breakers. They were policemen. What would someone expect to happen? But that doesn't make them belligerents in a battle or war. They were on the scene as the day-to-day police force, to keep law and order and protect civilians. --RA (talk) 09:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Surely the fact that they played an active role in fighting the rebels makes the RIC DMP and British Navy belligerents. As for sources "The Royal Navy ship HMY Helga and was involved in shelling Liberty Hall in Dublin from the River Liffey with her pair of 12 pounder naval guns (Google Books - Send a Gunboat: The Victorian Navy and Supremacy at Sea, 1854-1904) during the Easter Rising of 1916."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Finnegas (talk • contribs) 10:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

In a military conflict, armed bodies are ordered by their leaders into combat, and do in fact take concerted military action as a body against the enemy. These are called combatants. Others are not called combatants. It doesn't matter if they wear a uniform, carry arms, take individual action or die. In particular as regards the DMP, dying does not constitute playing an active role. As regards the navy, "The Royal Navy ship HMS Helga was involved..." is not the same thing as "The Royal Navy ordered the ship HMS Helga to take naval action..." To include the navy as a combatant in the infobox would carry the obvious connotation that the Admiralty sent a fleet of warships to Ireland, which would obviously be wrong.

As regards the RIC I am the same as RA, that is, I am of two minds. If it weren't for Ashbourne I wouldn't include them. In Ashbourne it was a one-to-one between the Volunteers and the RIC, so there is a case for including them. On the other hand, Ashbourne was a small part of the whole, and in any case the police were only responding to an attack, not moving against the Volunteers under orders from HQ, so there is a case for excluding them. I would be content to see them go, but I'm not particularly bothered either way. Scolaire (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

In relation to this edit, Scolaire, the tricolour was not the flag of the Irish Volunteers or of the Irish Citizen Army. I agree that the tricolor is appropriate in the case of the Rising and appreciate a desire to avoid a passing out parade of flags. Pearse referred to himself as Commander-in-Chief of the "Army of the Irish Republic" in relation to the Rising, so how about:

Army of the Irish Republic, comprising:

Irish Volunteers

Irish Citizen Army

--RA (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous quote, that the field is for "the countries whose forces took part in the conflict." The people who took over the GPO ran up the tricolour, therefore that, and not some organisational banner, is the appropriate flag to use for the Irish forces. Scolaire (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Then, by that token, the people who took over the GPO did so as the "Army of the Irish Republic" and reference to other organisations (one of which countermanded the Rising) should be removed. --RA (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no strong opinions, but I don't think RA's suggestion of "Army of the Irish Republic, comprising:..." is bad. Sums up that these two organizations formed a new one that day (at least nominally). I'm also fine removing DMP. Should I go ahead and do that at least? Or should we wait for more input? -R. fiend (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Cumann na mBan should certainly be included. Not a large force but their participation, as an autonomous women's revolutionary organisation, was of great significance. Brocach (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's not go from one extreme to the other. Let's back up a bit and think about what the history books actually say. "Army of the Irish Republic" is consistent with what Connolly said on Easter Monday morning, but it's not what the conventional narrative says. The Rising was fought by the Volunteers and the ICA. That's what "everybody knows", it's verifiable and it's what we should use here. The flag they fought under was the tricolour, and that is the flag that should be used. As a collective term, this article, like many books, uses "rebels" throughout. That is not consistent with "Army" in the infobox. The choices then are:

1. Leave it as it is.
2. Put " Irish rebel forces:" – some people might find that objectionable; then again they might not.
3. Put " Irish republican forces:" – like AOTIR it sounds forced; it's not what people say.
4. Put followed by a line break, and do the same with the union jack on the far side.

Obviously I am for #1. It is not misinforming people. It gives the combatants and the flag they fought under. And it's not messy.

@Brocach: it's a "Military conflict" infobox. The "combatants" field is for the ones who did the actual fighting. It's not a matter of size or significance. Scolaire (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not terribly picky, so whatever is fine with me. Not to make a fuss of it or anything, but did they actively fight under the tricolour, or did they just raise one from the GPO? (I seem to recall they raised the Green Harp flag as well.) -R. fiend (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it was a green "Irish Republic" flag that Countess Markievicz ran up at home. It was the tricolour they fought under. Scolaire (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Scolaire, I do know what the infobox is for. Cumann na mBan was fully integrated into the Republican forces in April 1916 and should be listed. So I'm for #1 with C na mB included. Brocach (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, C na mB is not a deal-breaker for me. If people want them in they can go in. Just as long as the "but then you have to include the X as well" arguments don't start again. Scolaire (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Caulfield seems to have them raising a few flags over the GPO: the traditional green flag, the tricolour, and the green "Irish Republic" flag. Not looking for an argument here, and I basically think the tricolour is fine for the infobox, but I am curious about what makes any one of them the flag they fought under. -R. fiend (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

History makes it the flag they fought under. It was the flag of the Irish Republic, the Republic that was proclaimed by the seven leaders of the Rising. I really cannot see why people have difficulty getting their heads around this. I can't believe that anybody, anywhere, ever has learned about the Easter Rising without learning about the Volunteers, the Citizen Army and the tricolour as part of the package. Where have you ever seen a representation of the Rising with a green flag (by which I presume you mean the green harp flag) in it? Anyway, I don't know where in Caulfield you think you read that, but there were exactly two flags raised over the GPO: the tricolour and Markievicz's flag. Scolaire (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I said I don't have a problem with using the tricolour in the infobox, I was incidentally wondering that since they physically flew more than one flag what made the tricolour necessarily predominant. You say history does, which seems kind of retroactive, but, like I said, I'm not going to make a fuss. As for Caulfield, I don't have the book in front of me anymore, but I'm pretty sure it was page 11. I admit, his writing is pretty unclear in this part, but it seems he said someone went back to Liberty Hall to get some flags, and mentions the tricolour, and, I think, the harp flag. At the end of the page it makes reference to a green flag with the words "Irish Republic" on it. I guess this must be the same as the other green flag he mentioned, but somehow the way he said it it came across as a different one. In any case, the prominence he gives what you call the Markievicz flag would seem to imply they fought under that one as much as the other. But, yes, historically it is certainly the tricolour we most associate with the republican movement of this era. -R. fiend (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

"Caulfield seems to have them raising a few flags over the GPO: the traditional green flag, ..." The Green Flag was the flag of the Irish Volunteers.

"History makes it the flag they fought under." History is not what happened, it's what is written about what happened. "Where have you ever seen a representation of the Rising with a green flag (by which I presume you mean the green harp flag) in it?" Exactly. History is a 'representation' of what happened.

Anyway, I'm good with Option 2 or 3 above. It's not misinforming and it's not misrepresenting either (which 1 is). --RA (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I favour option 2, though 3 if 2 is too objectionable for some. Mabuska 22:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Also do we really need the flags in the "Commanders and leaders" bit? It is tautological seeing as there was only two sides in the conflict meaning the flags in the belligerent section would suffice. Mabuska 22:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd say do what the other articles do. I like a bit of consistency. -R. fiend (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I was going to suggest exactly what Mabuska has suggested, but I was waiting until I was sure that there were only going to be two flags in the Combatants section. Flags against the leaders' names are for when there is more than one country involved on each side e.g. The French commander, the British commander, the German commander, the Austrian commander etc. It is self-evident in this infobox that all the leaders on one side are Irish (republican) and all those on the other are British. I recommend that all those flags go. Scolaire (talk) 10:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The trials/ Executions

There doesn't seem to be much on the trials/ Court Martials. On a connected article there was some suggestion that given the gravity of the offences, (these were after all capital cases- so these were important trials), a question arises whether the correct court martial process was followed. If true it raises a rather interesting question in British Law- were the rebels tried by a competent court martial? (If not their "trials" and subsequent "executions", were no more legal in British law than the Declaration of the Irish Republic itself- that would be some irony. In any case it is interesting and significant legally since Roger Casemont had a conventional jury trial.

what about the lengths of the trials, the prosecution arguments, and defence arguments. Who were the prosecuting lawyers, who were the defence lawyers- (indeed were there any?) Are there trial transcripts, if so there must be content relevant to the article. If not, well that's significant too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.49.142 (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Martial law was declared in Dublin on Easter Tuesday, and in the rest of the country later in the week, so trial by court martial was appropriate. Casement was tried in London on a charge of high treason, which is why his trial was different. There's at least one book, From Behind a Closed Door: Secret Court Martial Records of the 1916 Easter Rising, that gives details of the courts martial. If you could get hold of that, you could certainly add the content. Scolaire (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Six days

Pargraph two of the lead says that the Rising started on 24 April and lasted six days. Paragraph three says it was suppressed after six days. It doesn't matter. 92.xx.xx.xx has deleted the info from the second para several times in the past and has been reverted each and every time, by me and others. We like having it twice. It is useful to have it twice. The context is different and it helps the understanding of each pargraph to have it said each time. Please, just leave it as it is, or open a request for comment. --Scolaire (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty sensible change to me. Or at least a re-phrasing to avoid repeition would be desirable IMO.

"We like having it twice." Who is we? Apart from one revert by You Can Act Like A Man, it looks like you're the only one reverting this change: here, here, here, here.

The history of the text begins when You Can Act Like A Man corrected the phrase in the third paragraph in March 2013. At that time, there was only one mention of "after six days" (i.e. the second paragraph gave a start and end date). The reason for You Can Act Like A Man's correction is because the text previously said "seven" (and then "five") days.

The duplicate wording was added by User:JMD on St. Patrick's Day last year. He/she changed the second paragraph from "the Rising lasted from Easter Monday 24 to Saturday 29 April 1916" to "the Rising began on Easter Monday, 24 April 1916, and lasted for 6 days".

My 2¢, change it back to "the Rising lasted from Easter Monday 24 to Saturday 29 April 1916". No harm in having both date range (in one paragraph) and duration (in another). --Tóraí (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

That's okay by me. Scolaire (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, --Tóraí (talk) 09:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Tóraí. But what about making it "…the Rising lasted six days, from Easter Monday, 24 April, to Saturday 29 April 1916" ? I originally added "six days" so one didn't have to stop and compare days and months to determine whether this thing lasted days or months or years—a critical part of understanding what the event was. Particularly for Americans not accustomed to day-month ordering, it takes a bit of cognitive work to parse that long string, with holidays and days of the week all part of the mix. Most readers will care that it was a 6-day event, not that it ended on a Saturday. —JMD (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

But how many times do we have to say it lasted for six days? The first sentence of the third paragraph says again: "The Rising was suppressed after six days of fighting..." And Monday to Saturday surely isn't that hard to work out ... even for Americans? :-)

I'm happy to support flipping sentences around, though. How about modifying both sentences? The first as you suggest and then re-focus the second on its purpose, as follows:

• "...the Rising lasted for six days, from Easter Monday 24 April to Saturday 29 April 1916."
• "While the Rising was suppressed and its leaders were executed, it succeeded in bringing physical force republicanism back to the forefront of Irish politics."

--Tóraí (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This is why I said at the start that the context is different in the two paragraphs. JMD thinks that stating the duration of the war in the first paragraph is useful (and titles such as Six-Day War suggests that people do like to think in whole numbers), while the point of the following paragraph is that the Rising had a profound impact despite its brevity. How about

• ...the Rising began on Easter Monday, 24 April 1916, and lasted for six days.
• The Rising was quickly suppressed, with Pearse agreeing to an unconditional surrender on Saturday 29 April. Its leaders were...

Scolaire (talk) 11:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

That gets a thumbs up from me. --Tóraí (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

On reflection, I expanded the third paragraph a bit. A large part of the reason for "six days" recurring in quick succession is that literally nothing was said about the Rising in Dublin between the sentence about its start and the sentence about its suppression. The lead is in serious need of revision to better reflect the article content. Scolaire (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems clear to me, too. Thanks for working on this! --JMD (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

"... led by schoolteacher and barrister Patrick Pearse ..."

What do others think of this? Clarke and MacDermott did the planning. Of whom, Clarke was the driving force, I believe. And Connolly was the overall military commander. So was the Rising "led" by Pearse? --Tóraí (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Pearse was the overall military commander, described in the war buletin as "Commanding in Chief the Forces of the Irish Republic, and President of the Provisional Government". Connolly was the commander of the Dublin forces. It was Pearse who signed the surrender order; Connolly added, "I agree to these conditions for the men only under my own command". So I think, by historical consensus, Pearse was the leader during Easter Week.

I thought, when I saw the heading, that you were going to talk about the description "schoolteacher and barrister". And my immediate reaction was that it could do with being changed. First, he didn't just teach, he owned and ran a school. Second, although he was called to the bar, he only ever tried one case, and it was not notable. Third, he was best known through his work in the Gaelic League, particularly as editor of An Claideamh Soluis. So I think that "led by schoolmaster and Gaelic League activist Patrick Pearse" would be more appropriate. Scolaire (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

"Commanding in Chief the Forces of the Irish Republic, and President of the Provisional Government" ... well, you can't argue with that. It was actually, Clarke, more than Connolly, that I was thinking of when posting. That he was the driving force and Pearce was more a public face.

No issue with changing the description, except that I would leave out specifically "Gaelic League activist" and just say "schoolmaster and activist". --Tóraí (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm! Kind of stating the obvious to say that the leader of an uprising was an activist. I've compromised and made it "Irish language activist". As for Clarke, it's true to say that he was the driving force behind the Rising, but he was not a Volunteer leader. The sentence in question is, "Members of the Irish Volunteers — led by..." Scolaire (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Who informed Eoin MacNeill?

Anybody know who informed MacNeill that the manoeuver was going to be a Rising? 79.97.64.240 (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but I forget. Ginger O'Connell and somebody else, I think. Using the right search terms on Google Books should get you the answer. Scolaire (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

23 April 1014: Battle of Clontarf

Is there any connection between the Rising's planned date of 23 April, being the same date of the Irish victory at the Battle of Clontarf in 1014AD? 79.97.64.240 (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a religious connection. The Battle of Clontarf was fought on Good Friday (which was unusual because the Peace and Truce of God in theory forbade it), and the Rising was planned for Easter Sunday. But there is no documentary evidence that I know of that the Battle of Clontarf, rather than the Resurrection of Christ, was in the mind of the Rising's planners. Scolaire (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Not just British army

The Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police were attacked by the terrorists. The army was sent only because the police could not maintain law and order. (92.11.192.215 (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC))

Already discussed and agreed above - e.g. see Belligerents above. (Also terrorists may not be the most appropriate word!!) Denisarona (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Ireland articles
• High-importance Ireland articles
• B-Class Ireland articles of High-importance
• All WikiProject Ireland pages
• B-Class Irish republicanism articles
• Top-importance Irish republicanism articles
• WikiProject Irish republicanism articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class British military history articles
• British military history task force articles
• B-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• B-Class European history articles
• Mid-importance European history articles
• All WikiProject European history pages
• Selected anniversaries (April 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (April 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (April 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (April 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (April 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (April 2012)