Talk:Easter Rising/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Authors Notability

So you have a problem with the notability of the author? Ok, lets here it. Please provide references or cite someone? Or is it you wish to change Wiki policy? Anyone following these discussions are going to start to question your motives. --Domer48 (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Despite what User:Domer48 would have us believe, Eoin Neeson is not a "noted historian".[1]

Am I alone in expressing my concern that one editor, Domer48, has, over a number of months, been giving undue weight to the writings of an Irish author, Eoin Neeson, in a number of articles relating to Irish history? Who is Eoin Neeson? Born in Cork in 1927, this "pony-tailed former senior civil servant" was director of the Irish Government Information Service in the Jack Lynch years from 1968-73. He is described as a "journalist" by the Princess Grace Irish Library (Monaco).[2] and a "writer and a former director of the Government Information Bureau" at the end of an opinion piece he wrote for the Irish Times in 2003.[3]

Neeson is not accepted by all the historical community as a colleague. He is certainly not a "noted historian". His books, a full listing of which is available from WorldCat,[4] include some titles in folklore and hagiography that are far from what any "noted historian" would engage in. Significantly, some of his books are published by the Prestige imprint from his home address.[5] His works have rarely, if ever, been cited by professional historians, as a Google Books[6] and GetCited search suggest.[7] Moreover and he has never contributed an article to a peer-reviewed journal, review, or edited volume.

Readers should also take into account that Neeson's Myths has been published by the Aubane Historical Society. What may sound like an innocuous local history society is actually the 21st-century expression of a small grouping called the British and Irish Communist Organisation, which has moved full circle from championing Irish historical revisionism in the 1970s to condemning it in 2007.[8]

Peer reviews of his works are non-existent, although some media reviews have appeared. A damning review by Brian Maye of his Birth of A Republic appeared in the Irish Times in November 1998. Neeson responded with a barrage of letters to the editor, attacking his reviewer language uncharacteristic of any historian. Indeed, as one letter-writer, Ellen Beardsley, wrote, she also "the dubious honour of recently reviewing a book by Eoin Neeson" (December 8th), continuing "Since Mr Neeson is consistently unreceptive to opinions other than his own, perhaps he should refrain from placing his work in the public domain. After all, his compulsion to enter into opprobrious correspondence upon the appearance of less than glowing reviews not only devours time (his and the reviewers') that could be better spent but, also must surely raise his blood pressure to exorbitant heights. Further, such correspondence serves no conceivable end, for it attempts to transfer the basis of opinion from the book to the person and, regardless of what Mr Neeson says, opinions based on the books will stand."[9]

Domer48's resistance to any modification to his contributions to Wikipedia certainly mirrors Neeson's own viciousness to any sort of criticism. A poor command of grammar is also something that they share in common. As Maye noticed in Birth of A Republic, wrote: "There is some confused expression and a liberal sprinkling of misprints, misspellings, omissions and grammatical errors."[10] Anyone who's had the pleasure of copy editing Domer48's contributions to Wikipedia can certainly see the similarity.[11]

This is not about notability, but WP:Undue Weight. And challenging the nonsensical, unreferenced, unfounded weasel word claim that Neeson is a "noted historian". Provide a reference for the description that he is a "noted historian" from a noted historian, or the description goes.--Damac (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Damac; may I remind you that Wiki's policies on WP:Reliable source do not specify that the source must be a "noted historian". The views of various Irish Times journalists are perhaps interesting (though not to me) but I think we can produce enough evidence that the IT doesn't have a WP:NPOV in relation to Irish Nationalism. So your "provide a reference for the description that he is a "noted historian" from a noted historian, or the description goes" is somewhat OTT. And you seem about to engage in a bout of WP:Edit warring. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

Surely you can see that when a self-published folklorist is being touted as a "noted historian", and almost 50% of the references in a high-importance article are to his book alone, then there is a serious problem of undue weight? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Haven't been following this in detail to be honest. Just struck me that Damac's demand for a "notable historian" to verify that Neeson was a "noted historian" was going beyond normal requirements. If the situation is as you portray it then it would need some consideration, no doubt. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

Just more Comment and opinion, Princess Grace Irish Library (Monaco) has him as a historian. Read Ireland Book News "Eoin Neeson's masterly appraisal make this book compelling and essential reading." the Weekly Worker Cited and noted. An Phoblacht, "Another blow against anti-nationalist revisionism was struck by historian Eoin Neeson" good alternative to the IT. RTE "Vincent talks to author and historian Eoin Neeson." Recommended Reading. Now Damac, I managed that in five minutes. So your prepared statement, or attempt to shoot the messenger falls flat on it's face. Now everyone knows your just out to make a point, so cop on to yourself. Bring your little band of POV bandits of some where else and play. --Domer48 (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Now we have an Admin who dose not even bother to use the talk page getting into the editwaring spirit. Nice one! --Domer48 (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw that Domer and have left a message on his page. If he continues edit-warring I'll escalate the issue. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is getting stupid, the text is referenced, therefore I fail to see what the problem is, if editors disagree with what the source says then provide sources to support your claims.--Padraig (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Now he has added a request for citations (which he should have done the first time). That is acceptable; now Domer, you should provide them in the place required (rather than on this talkpage). Padraig; if you feel that "this is getting stupid" may I politely suggest you tell that to John? (Sarah777 (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

See Aatomic1 is back edit waring, they don't even cop they are arguing my point, and still put it back in. --Domer48 (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, we're stuck in a dispute, partially caused by Domer48's obvious difficulty in literacy. The Princess Grace Library does not refer to him as a historian; it clearly calls him an "journalist" in the first line of their biographical note of him. The page does refer to another author, Peter Costello, who describs him as one.

Needless to say, Peter Costello is not a professional historian, neither is Vincent Browne (his RTÉ page descibes Neeson as an "historian").

As I've pointed out, while Neeson has written a number of features for the Irish Times, the byline describes him as an "author", not an historian. Surely, as the author of a piece, he must have had some say in what his byline stated.

My problem was primarily with the adjective "noted", added by Domer48 and which clearly reflects his almost singular obsession with Neeson and his books.

Calling Neeson an historian is also problematic in my book. Sadly, and unlike many other university-trained professions and sciences (solicitor, engineer, architect, chemist, physicist, etc.), anyone can call themselves an historian. The fact remains, however, that Neeson does not engage in academic debate or culture, is not a member of any professional historical association, and his works have not reviewed by the wider academic history community. Describing him as a "noted historian" is going too far.

As Neeson quotes have been peppered across a number of articles, it's probably time that Neeson gets his own article. That will cover all aspects of his prolific career and should leave readers in no doubt to his standing as an "historian".--Damac (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as you reference it I have no problem at all? But that is the problem, your lack of references! All comment and opinion, but nothing to else. --Domer48 (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Noted" is a meaningless space-filler. What does it mean? That someone once made a note that he was an historian? That tells us nothing. It's basically just a weasel word; someone can be a "noted" anything. It's like saying "important", which is utterly subjective as well as potentially POV. Damac is right in that basically anyone can call oneself a historian as long as they've written something having to do with history, so calling Neeson a historian is fair, regardless of any status of "professional". But why "noted"? What does it add? -R. fiend (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Uncontroversial (?) copyedit while page is protected

User:John is an administrator I respect and his page is always on my watchlist. I was a bit surprised to see him being accused of edit warring so I took a look to see what he was up to. In that respect and according to an antagonist of mine, I have Wikistalked him here.

Hopefully this requested edit is uncontroversial. "Sprit" is mis-spelled and the inline reference format breaches WP:MOS. Please change

According to noted historian RTEPrincess Grace Irish Library (Monaco) Eoin Neeson, a plan involving a military victory was never a consideration; while the Leaders considered there would be some military success, an overall military victory was never an objective of the Rising. The IRB set out three objectives for the Rising: First, declare an Irish Republic, second, revitalise the sprit of the people and arouse separatist national fervour, and thirdly, claim a place at the post war peace conference.

to

According to writer [12][13] Eoin Neeson, a plan involving a military victory was never a consideration; while the Leaders considered there would be some military success, an overall military victory was never an objective of the Rising. The IRB set out three objectives for the Rising: first, declare an Irish Republic, second, revitalise the spirit of the people and arouse separatist national fervour and, thirdly, claim a place at the post war peace conference.

Thanks! Alice^✉ 01:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} The spelling mistake I noted above has now been corrected, but I would like to propose the following change - most of which has been discussed in the sections below:

According to writer <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.pgil-eirdata.org/html/pgil_datasets/authors/n/Neeson,E/life.htm |title=Eoin Neeson |accessdate=2008-01-08 |author= |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= |year= |month= |format= |work=EIRData - Electronic Irish Records Dataset |publisher= Princess Grace Irish Library (Monaco) |quote=1927- ; b. Cork; journalist; Director of Government Information Bureau; later civil service posts; The Civil War in Ireland, 1922-3 (Cork Mercier 1966; rep. 1989); novels include Life Has No Price (1960); plays include The Face of Treason (radio and tv.); also vols. on folklore such as Irish Book of Saints (1967); First Book of Irish Myths and Legends (Mercier n.d.); a life of Michael Collins (1968); Birth of a Republic (1998) was published under the Prestige imprint from his home address. }}</ref> Eoin Neeson, a plan involving a military victory was never a consideration; while the Leaders considered there would be some military success, an overall military victory was never an objective of the Rising. The IRB set out three objectives for the Rising: first, declare an Irish Republic, second, revitalise the spirit of the people and arouse separatist national fervour and, thirdly, claim a place at the post war peace conference. <ref name="Eoin Neeson"/>

The rationale for missing out the first reference to a program guide from RTE (National Irish radio station) is that it is

1. superfluous and unnecessary, since nobody has disputed that he is a writer
2. insufficiently authoritative to establish that he is or was an historian

The other change is to put the remaining source in citeweb format. Alice^✉ 00:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The protection on this article has expired, so you should be able to make the change yourself. Please take care to ensure your edits will have consensus, and discuss controversial changes on the talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection

What is the controversy over protection exactly? It seems the phrase "While the overall aim of the IRB was the establishment of an Irish Republic, there is doubt that they intended to accomplish this with a single act of armed insurrection" is still controversial, for some reason. Still can't figure out why some people have a problem with it. Perhaps it would be better if it said "While the overall aim of the IRB was the establishment of an Irish Republic, there is no doubt that they intended to accomplish this with a single act of armed insurrection"? Because Neeson seems to be the only one who's really providing any doubt at all. If a professional historian denies military success was never even considered, someone really should cite him. As it stands, people seem to think the statement saying "there is doubt" is the same as saying "the leaders planned to overthrow British rule in Ireland and would not settle for anything less." That's not what it says. Some writers on the subject say there was at least some hope of military success at some point. One says there was not. Therefore, there is "doubt". No one is denying the other aims. This is getting ridiculous. -R. fiend (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I will make it simple for you. "there is doubt that they intended to accomplish this with a single act of armed insurrection." Who says there is doubt? Who says they planned to accomplish this with a single act of armed insurrection? Now we know for a fact that Diarmaid Ferriter in The Transformation of Ireland: 1900-2000, on p. 142 did not say it. And we know also, for a fact, that he was only quoting Michael Laffan from his Resurrection of Ireland, p.xiii and he did not say it either. So who did? Now I could reference it, and reference it properly, but as long as you wish to Synthesizing material to validity your own opinions and engaged in original research, I'm unable to do so. I provided 12 references to show that the IRB planned the creation of the Irish Volunteers, and you would not accept it. --Domer48 (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a typographical error in your comment immediately above, Domer 48?

Are you really saying that you can find no basis in any source whatever that "there is doubt that they intended to accomplish this with a single act of armed insurrection."? Alice^✉ 09:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, one editor wants to say that they set out and planned for a military victory. Now they have not provided a reference for this. Instead, they have attempted to Synthesizing material to validity your own opinions. Now thats wrong! --Domer48 (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's try to make this simple. There are 3 potential scenarios:

1. There is a consensus among historians that they at some point considered military success.
2. There is a consensus among historians that none of the leaders ever considered military success.
3. There is no consensus, and therefore, by definition, "doubt". (If you think "doubt" is not a god word, there are others that can be used).

Let's look at these situations:

1. Neeson denies this, so at least one person does not agree, and there is no consensus.
2. No one except Neeson seems to say military victory was never a consideration, but some say there were, and the rest are eerily silent abut this, so there is no consensus the other way either.
3. There is no agreement among historians about this, as we cannot take Neeson's statement as an established fact if it is not backed up by the vast majority of other writers. Therefore doubt exists (in fact, it is Neeson who is doing the doubting).

Laffan, to name just one, does say "Few of the conspirators actually sought martyrdom and they hoped and planned for a successful revolt." How do you read that to mean that they never considered a successful revolt? He does go on to say "Nonetheless their main concern was to make a heroic and principled gesture, to salvage what they viewed as the remnants of Ireland's tarnished honour to end the country's passivity and its tame acceptance of British rule." The edit does not deny this (it is not mutually exclusive with a successful revolt anyway), in fact it uses Neeson's words to express this exactly in the following sentence. If people want to present this idea [that no one at any time ever considered a successful revolt] to be the consensus among experts on this period, they have a lot of work to do, because right now all we have is one unsubstantiated statement by a single author. He doesn't speak for everyone. -R. fiend (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance but has any editor provided a reference to say that a military victory was what the leaders wanted or is it just editors opinion on this thanks. BigDunc (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Dunc, your right of course! They have not provided one reference to say they planned a military victory. Notice the slective quote by Laffen. Here is the full quote that they decided to ignore:

The full text of this is: Few of the conspirators actually sought martyrdom and they hoped and planned for a successful revolt. Nonetheless their main concern was to make a heroic and principled gesture, to salvage what they viewed as the remnants of Ireland's tarnished honour to end the country's passivity and its tame acceptance of British rule. from The Resurrection of Ireland - The Sinn Féin Party 1916-23, p.35, by Michael Laffan ISBN 0-521-67267-8.--Padraig (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Now dose that sound like they planned for a military victory? Of course not, but dose it stop them, no. --Domer48 (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If R. fiend is factually correct as to the references and sources (and nobody else seems to have called him out on this aspect) then his argument is logically and semantically correct, it seems to me.

BigDunc and Padraig: it seems to me that you wish to advance an un-sourced and biased point of view that the leaders were prescient as to the likelihood (or even the distinct possibility) of military failure. Alice^✉ 19:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is not an example of Lions led by donkeys. Aatomic1 (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Alice^✉ why don't you ask R. fiend to provide a reference which says, the leaders planned for a military victory? Something along the lines of the example I gave here. --Domer48 (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Domer48: I'm sorry to be a little sensitive, but I'd be grateful if you did not reproduce my coloured HTML signature with the little envelope symbol, until and unless I give you authority to sign on my behalf. My user name of "Alice" is quite short to write. Thanks in advance for your co-operation in this regard. (I ha ve a little Java script in operation that detects incidents of this signature use).

I don't ask him because it is a reasonable assumption in pre-suicide bomber days that political leaders would not ask men to die in a "military" cause that had zero chance of achieving a success. But I do take your point that this is an assumption. I assume that the rifles were also loaded with live ammunition rather than blanks.

Alice do you think that the leaders of the rebellion were naive enough to think that they could defeat the might of the Bitish Empire in a battle? The reference that Padraig points to that it was the beginning of a process of uprising. And not a one off battle to drive them into the Irish Sea BigDunc (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A telling debating point, BigDunc. But is that really the POV that editors have been trying to introduce here? I think you can easily tell that I am very ignorant on this subject, but I always had the impression that the targets were chosen more for symbolic than tactical military advantage. Alice^✉ 04:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well with any luck, we will be able to dispel a number of impressions editors and readers may have had. That there is resistance to this process of correction is what has us here. "I give you authority to sign on my behalf" I signed nothing on your behalf, sorry to be a little sensitive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domer48 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Some more proposals

Okay, my New Year's resolution is to stop losing my cool and try to bring some peace into the world. In that spirit, I would like to offer some comments/proposals:

1. We need to keep a sense of proportion. The difference between the two edits is so tiny that very few people other than us here would even see a difference. With so much in the article that could be improved it is a terrible waste of everybody's talent to devote weeks of editing to what is essentially "was never a consideration" against "was virtually never a consideration".
2. We need to stop being angry (and this is obviously directed at myself as much as or more than anyone else). Anger only leads to entrenched positions even when those positions aren't worth defending. If something makes us angry we need to take the time, be it a half-hour or a day, to cool down and think out a reasoned response.
3. We need to go beyond assuming good faith; we need to assume that all the involved editors are working to improve the article, that they are working from reliable sources, that they have read, understood and followed all the relevant WP policies and guidelines, and that they are writing from a viewpoint that is reasonable and balanced. Edits can then be discussed on their merits rather than on the perceived or implied shortcomings of the editors.
4. We need – and I'm sticking my neck out here – to abandon our quest for the truth. That is for the historians to do, and there are some things we will never know the truth of if we argue until doomsday. Let us amateurs just write what we know and leave the whys and wherefores to those whose job it is.
5. In the short term, we need to decide which edit is to remain, so that the article can be unprotected and we can move on. I think it would be preferable to do this by agreement rather than by polling or by arbitration. Both edits look equally good to me. If I had to choose I would go for Domer's edit, only for the reason that it is the less complex of the two (though I would change "noted historian" back to "historian" for the same reason). Either way, I would like to see it done in such a way that neither editor is seen to have "backed down".

That's my 2½d worth. Obviously, everybody is free to heed or ignore any or all of it. Whatever may emerge, I wish all of you a Happy New Year and happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Very wise. Alice^✉ 19:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice one Scolaire, I totally agree with you. Now the only problem with my edit is, I can also put forward a conflicting view to Neeson. For example:“The Ireland Report indisputably reveals the Military Council’s plans as optimistic, coherent in relation to land warfare and directed to achieving a military victory by overwhelming the British forces in Ireland.” Now that is the sort of reference they are looking for, but can not provide. Now I have every intension of adding it, but it must be done in the context in which it was written, and not used slectivly. Now if there was a strict adherence to WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:V it would at least be a start. --Domer48 (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Quote from Domer

Now the only problem with my edit is....

...er if you are aware of a problem with your edit why did you not simply insert it in the first place? You have been dicking everyone around.Aatomic1 (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is R. Fiend making edits to a protected article, I see no prior discussion here for the changes he made here.--Padraig (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That may have been my fault, Padraig. If you look at the section but one above this one (entitled "Uncontroversial (?) copyedit while page is protected") I assumed that nobody would object to the two inline "references" being of the form suggested by our WP:MOS so as to appear to the reader just as numbers rether than as (distracting?) piped external links. I also thought that the spelling correction of sprit (sic) would be uncontroversial. R fiend was very restrained in his edit and only changed the reference style - he even kept the spelling mistake (although that was corrected in his second edit). You will note that he did not change "According to noted historian" to "According to writer" since he (presumably) thought that might be controversial. I think we should follow Scolaire's advice above and not be so grudging and nit-picking with our fellow editors. Alice^✉ 04:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• #Uncontroversial (?) copyedit while page is protected. Aatomic1 (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Admins are not allowed to edit protected articles, especially when they are involved in the disput over content.--Padraig (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference for that? I thought that edits could be requested - which is why I started the section that I did. I certainly took the lack of a response for acquiescence and R fiend may have done too. Alice^✉ 04:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Issues with the current version

Here's one of my problems with that paragraph as it stands, and I'm sorry if I didn't make some of this clearer earlier: The main thing is that Neeson, and therefore the article, use some poor language, specifically he uses absolute terms in a very general manner. "a plan involving a military victory was never a consideration." It is mostly the two italicized words that are problematical. It doesn't say "the plan was not for military victory" (a substantially less controversial statement), it says "never" as in at no point, apparently ever, going back god knows how many years, did anyone not only not plan, but didn't even think about the possibility of military victory. So none of the people involved in any stage of the planning (the Military Council, The Supreme Council, The ICA, The Clan na Gael) even thought for a moment about a potentially successful insurrection. That is going well beyond simply stating that their goal was not to use this one rising to actually establish an independent republic.

I think everyone can agree that the leaders had other goals. They were certainly prepared to go ahead whether the probability of military victory was 99% or 1% (this is what set them apart from men such as O'Rahilly, Hobson, Casement, and others). But to go from that to saying it was never a consideration by anyone goes well beyond what any other historian says, or could say with any degree of certainty. Can Neeson honestly say that when the IRB Supreme Council met at the dawn of WWI, not a single one considered the remote possibility of actually succeeding in the goal of an Irish Republic? And when and why did this notion go from an impossibility to an actual goal during the war for independence? Perhaps I'll know more about what Neeson's source for this assertion when his book arrives in my mailbox soon, but I'm not certain it will be anything other than his personal hypothesis. -R. fiend (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

R. fiend, I still don't understand why you don't just let it go. That Neeson said that "a plan involving a military victory was never a consideration" is a bald fact; that he was fairly close to the truth, at least as regards the Military Council in 1913 - 1916, is accepted by all parties; that the statement adds to the article seems to be accepted by you, since your reverts involve adding a sentence rather than deleting that one. Compare the sentence "The Rising is generally seen as having been doomed to military defeat from the outset, and to have been understood as such by its leaders: critics have seen in it elements of a "blood sacrifice" in line with some of the romantically-inclined Pearse's writings", most of which is still in the article today, and you might see why I am puzzled by the current edit-war.

Domer48, am I right in thinking that your response to me above means that you now want a contrary point of view put forward, but you will not allow anybody other than yourself to do it, because nobody else is capable of doing it properly? If that is so, and considering your pointed references to WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:V, I don't really understand how you can say you "totally agree" with me. Which 100% are you agreeing with?

Scolaire (talk) 08:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A few points. First of all, I think we should try to do better than "fairly close to the truth." I think undue weight is being given to the opinions of a single writer who admits he contradicts most other sources. I think Neeson uses too much hyperbole and too many superlatives, in a manner of speaking, and they are carried into this article (the difference between "not planning for military victory" and "never considering military victory" is more significant than it might seem). Furthermore, I happen to think the writing isn't very good. The whole paragraph was cut out of Neeson's book and inserted in the middle of a cohesive section of this article, and it's pretty damn obvious. The paragraph really needs some sort of introduction because the transition is awkward. (Additionally the 4 words "military victory was never" appear twice in the same sentence, but admittedly that's more of a minor stylistic point that could probably be worked out after the more controversial elements are settled.) Besides, I'm not the only one arguing for this, as others have said basically the same thing. That being said, I appreciate your insights above (which I meant to point out earlier but forgot) and agree with most of what you said. -R. fiend (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I may have to re-read the last 13 sections, but I have the impression that the majority of the 20,000 words posted in the last two weeks were concerned with the words "a military victory was never a consideration". If your problem is with the whole paragraph, as you now say, then focussing on those few words for that long may not have been the best way to deal with it. If each editor involved posted an alternative wording of the whole paragraph on the talk page, then we could have a meaningful discussion on all of the issues, including the weight given to Neeson's book, and conceivably end up by improving the article. BTW, I think your comment on "fairly close to the truth" is unfair. Nobody disputes the accuracy of the quote, or its relevance to the article, and the imputation that I would settle for less than the truth seems to me like a cheap shot, and at odds with the assumption of good editing that I proposed in the previous section. Neither did I suggest that you are alone in your opinions; I simply replied to your post on a one-to-one basis. Scolaire (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Scolaire (talk) "a plan involving a military victory was never a consideration" is a statement of fact. Can you tell me what is wrong with that. That one editor doubts that, and yet cannot reference one author who shares that doubt, or rejects the notion is at the root of the problem. The same editor rejected the fact that the IRB were behind the establishment of the Volunteers and despite me providing 12 references, continued to obstruct the article. The same editor would not accept the fact that it was Tom Clarke who reorganised the IRB starting the process even before he arrived in Ireland, and insisted that it was Hobson, even though Hobson did not arrive in Dublin until 1980. It has got to the stage were you have to nearly reference each sentence, because of this editor. --Domer48 (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Scolaire, sorry if I gave you the wrong impression, my problem is not with the entire paragraph, but with the emphasis the paragraph gives to the opinion of a single author, and the manner the entire paragraph is incorporated into the article. Both are remedied by the edit you said was just as good as the other, and those are my reasons why I think it is better. (I did also mention the repetition of "military victory was never", but I honestly only just noticed that yesterday, so it has not been a focus; it should be quite easy to fix, if people can tolerate minor changes to what they write.) Additionally, I have been posting alternative wordings on the talk page, only to be met by irrelevant responses by people who apparently didn't even read them. Again, sorry if I misunderstood your comment about being fairly close to the truth, but that was what you said in the context of letting the article stay as is.

Domer, well, we've been over this many times. I've referenced other authors who contradicted that statement (even Neeson says many writers do), but obviously you don't care to hear that. One author says it's true so it must be an indisputable statement of fact. I never said the IRB were not behind the creation of the Volunteers (or at least one of the forces behind their creation), I said the Volunteers did not create the Volunteers, which is different, and not supported by all those books you cited. I never said Clarke didn't reorganize the IRB, only that he wasn't the only one and didn't start it himself. More on that here. By the way, fascinating how Hobson could not have done anything until 1908 (or was it 1980?) because he was in Ulster, and not Dublin, but Clarke could start reorganizing while he was in America, which last I checked was not only not in Dublin, but not even in Ireland. -R. fiend (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) To Domer:

1. I am on record as saying that I am perfectly happy with "a plan involving a military victory was never a consideration".
2. R. fiend has referenced several authors in support of his argument, so even though I would prefer to leave the quote as it is, I don't think it's helpful to say he's not referencing authors when he is.
3. R.fiend never rejected the fact that the IRB were behind the establishment of the Volunteers, only the fact that they were actually the creators. If you recall, I supported you on that one as well, but I don't think it's helpful to distort the facts.
4. I don't understand "Hobson did not arrive in Dublin until 1980", but it seems to me that R. fiend is only saying that the process of reorganisation of the IRB in Ireland was begun by Hobson and McCullough in Belfast in 1905. Once again, I am in agreement with you that Tom Clarke was the prime mover both in the revival of the IRB and in the planning of the Rising, but let's not attack another editor for something he hasn't said.
5. Quite frankly, it seems to me that it's Domer48, not R. fiend, that requires you to reference each sentence. I don't recall R. fiend ever reverting an edit with a summary of "Please read WP:V".
6. Finally, my name is not "Scolaire (talk)". I am happy to be addressed as "Scolaire", or "Peter", but "Scolaire (talk)" grates on my nerves.

Thank you. Scolaire (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Lets get this out of the way once and for all, R. fiend, quote an author which states that they planned for a military victory. Now we have established that Michael Laffan, The Resurrection of Ireland - The Sinn Féin Party 1916-23, p.35 and Diarmaid Ferriter in The Transformation of Ireland: 1900-2000, on p. 142 did not say it. Now I can reference and quote sources which show that Clarke was in contact with Hobson, before he came to Ireland, so we can park that one for now. R.fiend did and dose rejected the fact that the IRB were behind the establishment of the Volunteer and not just on this article. Scolaire, you know that a military victory was never part of the planning, so lets see what reference is produced? --Domer48 (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Once and for all, R. fiend has not said that they planned for a military victory, only that they did not rule it out. The full quote from Laffan, quoted by Padraig above, says just exactly that: their main concern was to make a heroic and principled gesture, but they hoped and planned for a successful revolt (Ferriter apparently only quoted Laffan). My two aims here are to dissuade R. fiend from arguing against the Neeson quote, and to dissuade you from misrepresenting him. Either or both of you have the option of just stopping. Just stopping will not harm the article a bit but it will allow us to move on and do some needed editing. Scolaire (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the full quote of laffan should be used in the article rather then just the first sentance.--Padraig (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Few of the conspirators actually sought martyrdom and they hoped and planned for a successful revolt. Nonetheless their main concern was to make a heroic and principled gesture, to salvage what they viewed as the remnants of Ireland's tarnished honour to end the country's passivity and its tame acceptance of British rule."? Agree. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Last I checked, no one was trying to insert to actual quote of Laffan into the text at all, just citing it in the footnotes. I'd be generally against inserting it, at the risk of the section becoming a list of quotes about aims and the like. That's poor style.

Additionally, I want to clarify something Scolaire said above. I'm not even trying to say that they did not rule out military victory, as they may well have. I'm just trying to point out that sources are not all in complete agreement on the issue. Neeson's view is the most extreme (going the furtherest at least) and also the only one presented. That's my issue. All I'm proposing is adding to the opening of the paragraph: "While the overall aim of the IRB was the establishment of an Irish Republic..." this part no one can deny. It is also a stylistic improvement as it ties in better to the paragraph before it. "...there is doubt that they intended to accomplish this with a single act of armed insurrection." This reminds readers that the eventual goal was still a Republic, and they still eventually expected to have to take it by force, but this rising was only the first step. Again, I'd like to see the article go more towards presenting the idea that military victory was not really the plan, rather than "never a consideration". Is there any other source that goes as far as Neeson? -R. fiend (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"I'm just trying to point out that sources are not all in complete agreement" what sources? Provide the sources? --Domer48 (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• sigh* I can only conclude at this stage, Domer - despite Scolaire's excellent admonition to vigourously assume good faith, above - that you are being deliberately unhelpful and obstructive. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Domer has admitted as much here. Aatomic1 (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have asked also where are these sources that refute the one Domer has put in, an easy way to stop this is to just ref it. BigDunc (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Dunc, your wasting your time. Bill and Ben there just want to cause trouble, and add nothing to the discussion. --Domer48 (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think all editors should pay attention to a very useful guidelines, developed at the Wikipedia Military History Project

"Policy requires that articles reference only reliable sources; however, this is a minimal condition, rather than a final goal. With the exception of certain recent topics that have not yet become the subject of extensive secondary analysis, and for which a lower standard may be temporarily permitted, articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians. The use of high-quality primary sources is also appropriate, but care should be taken to use them correctly, without straying into original research. Editors are encouraged to extensively survey the available literature—and, in particular, any available historiographic commentary—regarding an article's topic in order to identify every source considered to be authoritative or significant; these sources should, if possible, be directly consulted when writing the article."({[WP:MILMOS#SOURCES]], emphasis mine)

The problem here and elsewhere is that books, primarily from the British and Irish Communist Organisation/Athol Books/Aubane Historical Society/Anti-Revisionist-cum-born-again-nationalist stable are being extensively quoted in articles relating to Irish history. More and more space is being given to views which may not be representative of the professional and academic historical community. Neeson's books have not been peer reviewed by historians, which itself is a statement of how much standing this author has in the historical community.

Time and time again we are being asked to provide quotations that directly refute the interpretations of one author, Eoin Neeson. Providing a primary source which suggests that the IRB never considered military victory is one thing; providing a secondary opinion contained in a published book and standing over it as it it is gospel fact, is another.--Damac (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Still searching in the dark are we Damac? Rather than provide a reference, well you just keep scrapping the bottom of that barrel, as long as it keeps you happy. --Domer48 (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have Neeson's book now, and while I haven't had time to look over it too carefully, the passage in question is completely unsourced. The author is not a professional historian, and the book is not one that is widely considered authoritative. Why is it getting so much play here? -R. fiend (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It has already been established above that Neeson is an historian. The book is very well referenced, should editors wish me to list the references in the book, just ask. The book was only published in 2007, and books normally take some years before they could be described as authoritative. I would be intrested if editors might suggest a title of a book which became authoritative, on publication. The book is the first one published, which has ever gone into so much detail on the planning of the Rising, though it dose state that in the introduction, and having read the book, that is what it set out to do. According to what source is the "book...not one that is widely considered authoritative," as it would be intresting to know which author would make such a claim? --Domer48 (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The reasons why it is not authoritative is not the issue. The fact that it is very new is one such reason, but the fact remains, it still is not considered authoritative. I'm not saying it shouldn't be referenced at all, just that this article is in danger of becoming Neeson's view of the Rising, which is not what this article should be, not when there are so many other works on the subject. As for references, sure he has a good bibliography, but no better than other works. And a list of books for further reading in the back does not in itself say that much. For footnotes, he has 93 in a 198 page book, which is less than one every two pages (not bad, but not great). You ask according to what source is it not considered authoritative? The real question is what source does consider it authoritative? (Name one source that specifically states Alfie, the village homeless guy, is not an authoritative source on the Easter Rising.) Do a google search for the book (like so) and you'll see 16 unique google hits, many wikipedia and its mirrors, a few are booksellers (none of them major sellers like amazon, however), and some are things like this. I'm not saying it's a bad book (I won't have an opinion on that for a little while now), and I have no doubt it will be an interesting read, but it is still not a book that should trump so many others. On a side note, I am a bit skeptical of a historian who, without batting an eye, contradicts established sources on when Pearse joined the IRB, but that's mostly a separate issue. -R. fiend (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

So no author has said it's not authoritative, but you must have thought that it was an issue because you said "the book is not one that is widely considered authoritative." I assumed you had a source for that? It was I who suggested that "the fact that it is very new is one such reason." Therefore the question "The real question is what source does consider it authoritative," coming from one who has said it is not the issue," I find strange? Now there is no one stopping anyone from referencing any book about the Rising, so Neeson's book dose not "trump so many others." I an glad thought that you now accept that Neeson is an historian. That at least is progress. --Domer48 (talk) 09:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't make heads or tails of half of what you wrote there. Please try to use proper grammar to make coherent arguments. I'll just say this, with 16 unique google hits (a quarter of which are wikipedia) I would say the book is not "widely" considered anything. It just isn't a widely considered book. You seem to think that everything is true until proven false, and that works are authoritative until proven otherwise, which is not the case. This is relevant here because of the policies Damac cites above addressing sources " considered to be authoritative or significant" and authors who are "reputable historians". Historian, not being a licensed trade, is a title that can be claimed by anyone who writes about history, the "reputable" part here is what is in question. -R. fiend (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please read up on WP:SKILL and WP:TPG while on the talk page. It would possibly help the discussion flow much better if you left out your personal opinions on the book, as our opinions are not pertinent. We only deal with what is WP:verifiable. Now is there any contradicting views to those of Neeson, held by Authors on this subject? If there is, they should be included on the article talk page. Our criteria for inclusion is based on the policies outlined in WP:V.--Domer48 (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There are, and they have been pointed out to you many times. That you refuse to recognize their existence prevents this discussion from going anywhere. -R. fiend (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly Domer there has been to much procrastination already on this article. BigDunc (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In this section, I can understand the contributions and rationale of Bastun, Damac, R. fiend, and Scolaire (listed in alphabetical order) but I am getting increasingly perplexed as to why BigDunc and Domer48 seem so resistant to any and every argument and cling like grim death to the exact (and, admittedly minority point of view) stance of a single non-historian.

The only other time I have seen such obduracy on Wikipedia has been when there was a conflict of interest between the partisan aims of a particular team of edit warriors and those of our Encyclopedia in presenting a balanced and unbiased summary. If you do have a particular interest (such as working for a book publisher or being aligned with a particular political party) I think that now would be a good time to declare it. Alice^✉ 23:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so were are the sources these editors wish to use? --Domer48 (talk) 08:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone show me the refs or sources that he is not a historian, Domer has provided WP:V and WP:RS references that he is. Instead of what Bastun, Damac, R. fiend, and Scolaire (listed in alphabetical order) POV regarding this historian is. If there is a conflicting view, source it and put it in simple. Also Alice as you have said before you are ignorant on the subject so please dont bandy words around like conflict of interest and edit warriors it is not helpful, if you have evidence of either please provide. BigDunc (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you show me a reference that the sky is not green? Or maybe actually read the discussion here. Anyone can claim to be a historian. I don't think anybody is even actually disputing that Neeson can be called a historian in the article (even if I too would personally prefer just "writer"), but there is certainly justified opposition to calling him a "noted" one. Domer has now removed that term anyway (thank you Domer). Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem Bastun, now if editors would like to wade in and lend a hand referencing, we could have the article covered in no time. Next step would be then GA ststus? --Domer48 (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of referencing, can I ask you again, instead of using "ref name=", to write a different reference for each statement, saying what page of the book is being cited. Most of the books you have cited in the last couple of days are already in the bibliography, and any that aren't can easily be added. Unfortunately nobody else can do this for you because we can only guess what page you are referring to. Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with the comments of Alice, above, I think there's nothing to be gained by prolonging the "is he a historian or is he a writer" argument. R. fiend and Damac are content for him to be called a historian, and Domer and Dunc are content to drop the "noted", so it's time to put that one to bed. Ideally, that would also mean removing the references — his job description is not a "fact" for the purposes of the article, so if we agree to leave it there's no need to cite it. Scolaire (talk) 08:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your reversion of my edit. (Otherwise it would be rather off-colour to revert a previously signalled edit that essentially put a citation in webcite format and that was not objected to at the time I signalled it.) Alice^✉ 10:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes it's a pity that you can't change your edit summaries, especially when you hit the 'Save' button and immediately think, "that was a bit strong!" Sorry about that :)

BTW I had missed the post you linked to there — although I often look at the revision history of a talk page, on this occasion the discussion had been dormant for several days so I only took up reading it from the bottom of the page. Scolaire (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's helpful, Scolaire. Thank you.

(After I have seen what happened to R. fiend, I doubt I will contribute here again. I feel terribly guilty that it was my nitpicking over correcting what I thought would be an uncontroversial and obvious spelling mistake that caused him to be victimised - even if it may have been just "the final straw".) Alice^✉ 00:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't refrain from contributing to this or any other article on my account. I think we all know that the ANI that resulted from the minor corrections to this article was bullshit (cool! I'm not an admin anymore, I can swear with impunity!), but it should not affect anyone but me. Had I been the model admin in all other respects, nothing would have come of it. In any case, I'm fine with how things worked out, but it should by no means prevent progress on any Wikipedia article. -R. fiend (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Issues with the current version II

Ok can editors list any concerns are still outstanding on this article, so we get on with improving this article.--Padraig (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Padraig. There are some edits going back to November that I wanted to discuss, but I was waiting for the other discussion to close:

1. "…it succeeded in bringing physical force republicanism back to the forefront of Irish politics" changed to "…it succeeded in bringing Irish Nationalism back to the forefront of Irish politics".[14]. Nationalism was always at the forefront of Irish politics, but before Easter 1916 it took the form of parliamentary politics seeking Home Rule. Physical force republicanism had been absent or undercover for all but 50 years, and the Rising brought that back to the forefront.
2. "There were some actions in other parts of Ireland, but they were minor and, except at Ashbourne, County Meath, unsuccessful" changed to "but they were minor, including Ashbourne, County Meath, and were also suppressed".[15]. I absolutely agree with the removal of the word "unsuccessful", but this edit relegates Ashbourne to the same status as the other actions, when in fact it was a more successful action than any of the others – it was in fact the only major action outside Dublin. Maybe it could be changed to "but, except at Ashbourne, County Meath, they were minor."
3. "This was the first major military parade held in Dublin since the early 1970's" changed to "held in Dublin since 1966".[16] 1966 was the biggest of the parades, but the parades continued until they were abolished by the coalition government in the early 1970s. I thought that this was stated in the "Legacy of the Rising" section, but I see now that it's not. It would be worth adding.

Scolaire (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

On your first point I agree that should be changed back, on the second your change would be a better wording and would agree to that. Same with the third point, 1966 was the last major parade, others since then where very low key affairs until they where ended by the coalition.--Padraig (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should drop the word "major" altogether, then? "This was the first official commemoration held in Dublin since the early 1970s" might be more to the point. And in the "Legacy" section, we might expand "In 1976 the Irish government took the unprecedented step of proscribing...a 1916 commemoration ceremony" to "The Irish government discontinued the annual parade in the early 1970s, and in 1976 it took the unprecedented step of proscribing..." Scolaire (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that.--Padraig (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the changes make sence. --Domer48 (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

After adding in that bit I discovered that the discontinuation of the parades was in the section after all. What has happened is that with various edits the section has become quite disjointed. I think it might be no harm to re-arrange the section, without nessessarily changing any of the text, to improve the flow. Scolaire (talk) 11:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am taking the liberty of deleting citations of Eoin Neeson where another source is also cited and Neeson isn't the primary source. That way he is cited where relevant but he is not given "too much weight". Two things struck me along the way:

• "...a plan involving a military victory was never a consideration; while the Leaders considered there would be some military success, an overall military victory was never an objective...": that does actually repeat itself. Is there a way to rephrase the last part of that sentence? Or even leave it out? Something like: "...a plan involving a military victory was never a consideration, although the leaders considered there would be some military success."
• "The IRB was represented by Joseph Plunkett (who travelled to Berlin in 1915) in addition to his father Count Plunkett, and Roger Casement. Casement was never a member of the IRB, and was kept unaware of the degree that the IRB had infiltrated the Volunteers, for whom he viewed himself as the representative." That is a contradiction: you cannot represent a party if you are not a member and are not aware that it is a party to the talks. Maybe re-phrase to: "...in addition to his father Count Plunkett. Roger Casement was also present, but viewed himself as the representative of the Volunteers. Casement was never a member of the IRB, and was kept unaware of the degree that the IRB had infiltrated the Volunteers."

Scolaire (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

They are all reasonable changes, and I would have no problems with them at all. They read much better now. --Domer48 (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the part about the Plunketts and Casement should be rephrased to better illustrate the situation as it was. That phrasing sort of makes it sounds like they were all sitting around the table together, discussing the plans, which is not the case. It's a pretty complex situation, really. -R. fiend (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Made the change before I saw this. Can you come up with an alternative phrasing? I'm not really familiar with this part of the story. Scolaire (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Plunkett and Casement drew up and presented a plan for the Rising to the Germans, this plan became known as the "Ireland Report." The thing is though, Plunkett was having parallel and secret meetings unknown to Casement, were he discussed the actual plans of the IRB. I will put a little something together on Casements role, and run it by you. --Domer48 (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Improving the article

Myself and One Night in Hackney were intending to do a major re-write back in July, but between one thing and another it didn't happen at that time. Here are some ideas that I put to him at the time:

1. I don't really like the division into "the outbreak of the Rising" and "British reinforcements arrive". It suggests that the Rising had two phases, a bit like WWF: one where the Irish jumped all over the British and the other where the British jumped all over the Irish. It also leads to overlap and confusion in the chronology. I suggest perhaps "Outbreak of the Rising", "The fighting in Dublin, Tuesday - Thursday", "The evacuation of the GPO" and "Surrender". It would then be a question of whether "The Rising outside Dublin" should stay at the end, where it is, or be slotted in after "The fighting in Dublin, Tuesday - Thursday", which might be more logical.
2. The point needs to be made that the issue was not settled by gun-battles, of which there were really only two that were decisive - at the South Dublin Union and at Northumberland Road - but by artillery. The destruction of the GPO knocked out the nerve-centre of the Rising and caused Pearse to order a general surrender, which shocked many leaders who still felt they were winning. I do not mean that this should be stated as a bald fact, but rather that it should be a thread running through the whole narrative, so that it doesn't end up - as it is now - as a whole lot of isolated actions and then suddenly they surrendered for no obvious reason. That's why I suggest "evacuation of the GPO" as a section; it was these things - the destruction of GHQ, the attempt to tunnel through Moore Street, the struggle to carry Connolly on a stretcher, the death of O'Rahilly and the ongoing reassessment of the situation by the leaders huddled in a small room, that led to the decision to surrender, rather than anything that was going on elsewhere
3. On the subject of artillery, the myth persists, and is perpetuated here, that the "gunboat" Helga (she was actually a fisheries protection vessel) did all the damage. In fact, Helga's only action of note was against the empty Liberty Hall, and even here, Townshend says that she needed help from the big guns. The shelling of O'Connell Street was carried out by two 18-pounders brought out of Trinity College and placed - somewhat unsteadily - in Tara Street (Townshend, p191).
4. Quote: "Reinforcements were rushed to Dublin from England, along with a new commander, General John Maxwell." In fact, Maxwell didn't arrive until the early hours of Friday morning (Townshend, p208). It's not clear to me to what extent he was directing activities (e.g. the shelling) before his arrival, but his first obvious input was the dictation of surrender terms (Pearse in fact surrendered to Gen. Lowe), and his biggest contribution was of course the courts-martial, executions and internment. Foy & Barton seem to cover his role in more detail, so I hope to re-read it again soon.
5. I would like to see more about the role of Dublin Castle in the Rising. I am currently reading Leon Ó Broin's Dublin Castle and the 1916 Rising, which has a lot of useful stuff in it. I propose first to expand the Nathan, Birrell and Wimborne articles, and then see how the information can be used here.
6. In Dublin, I would like to see more detail on the fighting in Northumberland Road in particular, but also in the South Dublin Union where Cathal Brugha was literally left for dead but carried on shooting people like Bruce Willis until the British (again literally) walked over him on their way to cleaning the place out. Also, the whole Bowen-Colthurst/Sheehy-Skeffington episode is missing. It might also be worth mentioning the killing of civilians in North King Street (Townshend, p206).
7. In the rest of the country, I think that Ashbourne should be promoted to top spot and described in much more detail, with Dick Mulcahy being mentioned by name. This should be followed by Galway, and then the other areas in any order.

Scolaire (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestions sound good. Here's my two cents: I think the Rising outside Dublin should be kept in a separate section at the end, so as to not disrupt the narrative of the action in Dublin, which is, let's face it, where the most important events were occurring. The other actions almost might as well have been completely separate incidents. I think Skeffy should certainly be mentioned, but not gone into in too much detail (he has his own article for that) as it is just one event which, though significant, didn't really have any impact on the Rising as a whole. As for the surrender, if memory serves, Caulfield stated that one of the final incidents that convinced Pearse to surrender was seeing a family of civilians gunned down by the Brits, making him realize that continuing the conflict would only result in more such deaths. They had basically done as much as they could do, and met at least some of their goals. So good ideas, and well spotted on some of those flaws (I hadn't noticed that the article gave the impression that Helga did all the shelling, and that should certainly be remedied). I would also like to suggest that the Background section be broken up so it isn't one big paragraph. I can do that myself though. -R. fiend (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at Caulfield and I think you might have misread it. It talks about the killing of a family in King Street and in the next paragraph we see Pearse starting to talk about surrender, but the two are not connected. He certainly did not witness the killing, and was probably unaware of it since communications had been cut off by then. The discussion in Moore Lane centered on the possible consequences to civilians of them (the GPO garrison) trying to break out, and when the cost in innocent lives seemed too dear they decided to surrender. Scolaire (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I must be misremembering then. It's been a few years since I read it. Thanks. -R. fiend (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just looked it up, and it seems we're looking at different passages. Here's what it says on page 273: "An incident had occurred which had decided Pearse that surrender was necessary. Robert Dillon, licensee of The Flag, a public house on Moore Street, his premises set on fire by a burning fragment from the GPO, had ventured out into the street with his wife and daughter, carrying a white flag. The military had chopped them down mercilessly under the very eyes of Pearse, who turned away sickened." It then goes on about Pearse's decision to surrender based on the certainty of further civilian casualties if they fought on. I'm not saying this specifically needs to be mentioned in the article, but there it is. -R. fiend (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is! I even read that page and still missed that passage! Humblest apologies. Scolaire (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I was slightly concerned there for a bit, as I thought I remembered that incident a bit too clearly to have completely made it up. I don't mind forgetting things, but imagining things that never happened is troublesome. -R. fiend (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice work Scolaire, good overall outline. There is a new book just released which focuses on the battle at Mount Street Bridge. "Blood on the Streets" I think it's called, that should be helpful. --Domer48 (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I read about it in the paper today. At least it seems to be within my price range :-) Scolaire (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Just picked it up today, will read it tonight. 118 pages + index. --Domer48 (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:11gpo191~11.jpg

Image:11gpo191~11.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Dublin Castle

I have finally done my expansion of the Matthew Nathan article. I hope to do Birrell and Wimborne in the next week or so and then add in the relevant information here Scolaire (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice one, fair play. --Domer48 (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Easterlily.jpg

Dose this coprighted image meet the criteria for inclusions, and if it doesn't then why is it being used? Fasach Nua (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Answer your own question before you remove it again? --Domer48 (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The answer is "no", you don't even have to go past the first point of the criteria for inclusions, Im at my 3RR limit with this image, would you remove please it Domer48, thanks Fasach Nua (talk)

Prominent Easter Rising IRA members

I agree with deleting that section. I didn't feel it added anything to the article. Scolaire (talk) 12:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it seemed a bit arbitrary and didn't add much. However, I think Hackney is mistaken in that most of those names were not mentioned elsewhere in the article, which is the reason I didn't delete it myself. -R. fiend (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with deleting that section, the list did not lend anyrhing to the article, and could possibly have just kept getting bigger. --Domer48 (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, R. fiend, they were people that were not prominent in the Rising; I think what was actually intended was Easter Rising participants who became prominent IRA members, and that's why I think they were surplus to requirements. Scolaire (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Some small changes

I made a few small changes which I didn't think could be adequately explained in the edit summary so here goes. Auld Orangie's mention of the Unionist's use of the term Rome Rule seemed relevant to me, so I put it back in, in context. I removed one footnote for Kee's Bold Fenian Men, as it didn't give a page number, and only referenced the fact that Unionists, Tories, and lords were all opposed to Home Rule, which is common knowledge to anyone who knows anything about the subject. I also removed to word "violently" in reference to their opposition as seeming a bit POV. Not all of them were "violent" so I replaced it with "steadfastly" as the best word off the top of my head. I'm open to other NPOV phrasing. -R. fiend (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to take a shot at redoing footnote 11. I think there are about a dozen references for that one statement (one of them mentioned twice) which is overkill, and strikes me as argumentative. In general, a statement that can be be referenced by any book on the subject is the sort of thing that does not need a footnote. This is a special case, as it deals with the IRB's hand in the formation of the Volunteers, which is the subject of some controversy. However, the phrasing we have now is neutral enough that it doesn't need overkill of this sort. 2 or 3 is more than enough, though I'd like to hear thoughts on which 2 or 3 or most significant. Kathleen Clarke should probably go, as she's not a historian and had no involvement with the formation of the Volunteers. I'm thinking the works that deal most closely with the subjects of the Volunteers and the IRB would be best. -R. fiend (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy with just the one reference myself, but remember why it took so many to have the information kept. I would also like to see the sentance re-worded to properly reflect the role of the IRB. That the Volunteers were discussed in November 1913, yet the IRB had been drilling its members since January of that year will and should be mentioned. This will place the role of MacNeill in its proper context, and also that of the IRB. Simply, the Volunteers were and always were a front establish by the IRB. MacNeill was sought out by them, to act as a figurehead. What happened after, i.e. control, Redmond and the split should not pose any particular problems, but who knows? --Domer48 (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

We've been over this quite a bit already, the view that the Volunteers were a puppet of the IRB is not the only view of the situation, and not backed up by some of the sources even in that footnote. The IRB never had complete control of the Volunteers (at least not before the Rising), who always remained a separate and independent organization. There were many factors in the formation of the Volunteers, and indeed the IRB were a big one, but not the only one. Besides, the details of this belong in the article on the Volunteers, and are out of the scope of this article. The current phrasing of that section has been put in place because it is accurate and reflective of both views of the situation. Additionally, any drilling by the IRB in the previous months may have been a prelude to it, but it was entirely separate from the formation of the Volunteers. -R. fiend (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

“ In January 1913, however, the Ulster Volunteer Force was established and this prompted Bulmer Hobson (the co-founder of the republican boy-scouts, Fianna Eireann) to tell his Dublin IRB following that they should use this as an excuse to try to persuade the public to form an Irish volunteer force. James Stritch, an old IRB activist of the Parnell era who grew up with Jim Boland in Manchester, immediately had a drilling hall built behind the Wolfe Tone Clubs headquarters (41 Parnell Square, the former site of the National Club, now the Foresters’ Hall) and he together with some much younger members of Fianna Eireann, began drilling a small number of IRB followers associated with the Dublin GAA, which was led by Jim Boland’s son, Harry. ”

Owen McGee, The IRB, p. 353-4

“ The long-predicted climax seemed less remote after 1913, when the IRB began to drill in preparation for an open organisation of Irish Volunteers, just as the Orange Institution had anticipated the creation of the Ulster Volunteer Force. As Gerald recalled: Jim Stritch got the Foresters to build a large Hall at the back of 41 [Rutland Square] and the LR.B. men started to learn foot-drill and simple military movements, in anticipation of the formation of Volunteers… ”

David Fitzpatrick, Harry Boland’s Irish Revolution, p.34

The reason there is so many references is because you would not accept the wording, and now you do. Now here are two references to back up what I'm saying. You have the McGee book, so no excuses. The wording is not compleatly accurate, but I compromised, though I had produced twelve references. Now if you want, you can word these two sources so that it reflects accurately on the role of the IRB, or I will, simple really. --Domer48 (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, what you're citing is examples of the IRB doing its own drilling, this is not the Volunteers, but rather independent actions preluding it. O'Rahilly, in his The Secret History of the Volunteers, talks of a previous organization in Athlone called the "Midland Volunteers", an unconfirmed group were reportedly doing much the same thing, but like the IRB's drilling around the same time, it was not the beginning of the Irish Volunteers as they came to exist in November 1913. Your source even says they were drilling "in preparation". They were getting ready for a national organization that they expected was coming, and would help create, but that doesn't make the Volunteers a wing of the IRB. If you feel the IRB's drilling in the months before the formation of the Volunteers, then go ahead and include it in the articles on the IRB and the Volunteers, if you haven't already, but it is relevant enough to the Rising to be included here. -R. fiend (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You see McGee also cites Hobson's Ireland yesterday and tomorrow, when referencing this information. Now my time for editing is a resource, and one I have decided not to waste. The quoted references are quite clear, and support what I have outlined above. Now you can spin away all you want, the information will be going in. So find a source that supports your opinion, and states that the formation of the Volunteers was not a front organisation planned by the IRB as early as 1913. Simple as , --Domer48 (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing you've cited says the Volunteers were a "front organization", all you've managed to do is find sources that say the IRB had the goal of establishing a paramilitary force, which they had a hand in doing, and were drilling men in preparation for this. To go from "the IRB was drilling men in 1913" to "The Volunteers was a puppet organization, conceived, built, and run by the IRB" is well beyond any sort of rational view of the situation. Do you have any source that calls the Volunteers a "front"? You have not cited one. -R. fiend (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Come back when you have something useful, I've material to put together for another article and have not got the time for your time wasting. --Domer48 (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "I have no sources calling the Volunteers a front for the IRB, but I'll be adding it to numerous articles anyway." At least we know where you're coming from now. -R. fiend (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

To get back to your actual edit: the Rome Rule article is awful, and should be deleted; I had no idea that article existed. "Steadfastly" is not really a useful word - either they were violently opposed (and I'm pretty sure I can find sources that say that both Bonar Law and Lord Lansdowne explicitly threatened violence) or they were simply opposed. Either way, this is far more relevant to the Home Rule Act 1914 than to the Easter Rising, and that section is far too long already without adding more qualifiers. Why not cut it down to just "Ulster Unionists opposed to home rule formed the Ulster Volunteer Force on 13 January 1913"? Scolaire (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Rome Rule article certainly needs work, but that's a separate issue (I'll take a quick swipe at fixing it after this). I do think it helps if the article alludes to why so many Ulster Protestants were so opposed to the Home Rule Bill, and the fear of a government run on Catholic principles is a big part of that. And I don't think the background is all that long, as quite bit of background is needed to fully understand the Rising. As for "violently", well, certainly there are those who threatened or implied violence, but I think it is unfair and POV to characterize all Unionists, Tories, and the House of Lords as violent. "Opposed" on it's own works for me, but might not be strong phrasing enough for some. -R. fiend (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm changing the wording slightly. Saying "Unionists etc. opposed..." rather than "Unionists etc. were opposed..." is less milk-and-water IMO. I don't agree that fear of Catholic government was the main factor in their opposition, though, and I would like to see a reference to that. Opposition to the breaking of the Union, to loss of control, and to being governed by the peasants from the South were far larger issues than the religious one, and the current wording gives a distorted picture, especially of the attitude in westminster, both Commons and Lords.

I've also replaced the Kee reference. You should never delete the first reference of the "ref name=" type without doing the necessary housekeeping (see reference 5 in your edit). Scolaire (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:BAN "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them". If any further proxying for banned editors or abuse of rollback in a content dispute takes place I will be raising this matter elsewhere. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Background and referencing

Peter I agree with your recent edits, and having made some efforts to cite sources on the article, might I suggest we should insist on same being provided with the introduction of new material. This is very important were text is added to referenced information, and not supported by the source provided. As you are aware, I have adopted a long term project which will take up a lot of my time, a limited resource all editors share. My fall back position, would be to insist on our policies being upheld. Regards, --Domer48 (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's pretty well accepted by everyone involved at this stage. A gentle reminder should be all that's necessary. Scolaire (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The Rising

As I said above, the chronology in this section was all over the place. Additionally, there was a great deal of opinion, a certain amount of irrelevancy, a lot that was spurious (Helga could not shell O'Connell Street without hitting the Viceregal Lodge??) and most of it was written in a very unpleasant, sneering tone. So, I have stripped it down to the bare bones (but keeping existing text as far a possible), replaced the subheadings with a temporary "the Rising in Dublin" and put it back in chronological order. I suggest we now expand this appropriately, with inline citations, maybe using the WikiProject Military history guidelines. Scolaire (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have removed a bit too much in some places, but I suppose the relevant information can be added back in. As to the comments above, I never said objection to Roman Catholicism was the main reason for Ulster opposition, but it was one of many factors, and one they were certainly vocal about (perhaps because it's not very complicated, unlike economic issues). They certainly used the term "Rome Rule" in Ulster (people just love puns when sloganeering; that trait seems universal). Also, I think I'm going to remove both the Kee footnotes. They don't specify a page, and are only used to reference common knowledge anyway (Unionists opposed dissolution of the Union??? Surely not!). -R. fiend (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my idea was that anything you think belongs can be added back in, suitably referenced. With the "Rome Rule" thing, I'm not denying it was an argument, but the way it's phrased at the moment suggests it was the main or only argument, for the Tories and the Lords as well as the Unionists. Any chance of re-wording? I'm not bothered about the Kee refs one way or another as long as it's done right, and nobody else objects. Scolaire (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I never object to rewording if it's done well. I think you're right in that it does erroneously make it seem like a argument made by Lords and Tories when it was, I believe, mostly a Ulster Protestant issue. That should be rephrased.

There are certainly things removed from the combat portion of the article that I think really should be included, and I'm not really relishing the idea of going through numerous books I haven't read in 5 years in an effort to find page numbers for everything, but I'll do what I can. Some significant details that I believe were removed include the effect of the smaller than expected turnout on the overall plan, Connolly's belief that the Brits wouldn't use artillery (I'm pretty sure he was banking on this, and when the first shell came it was the beginning of the end), some of the details of the battle plan and who came up with them, the looting, and some of the specifics of the battles fought throughout the city. -R. fiend (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Re the battle plan, I removed the following paragraph because the previous section was "Planning the Rising" and this one is "The Rising". The effects of the smaller turnout is relevant but it needs to go in the right place and be specific as to what those effects were. The rest might be worked into the foregoing "Planning" section:

• The original plan, largely devised by Plunkett (and apparently very similar to a plan worked out independently by Connolly), was to seize strategic buildings throughout Dublin in order to cordon off the city, and resist the inevitable counter-attack by the British army. If successful, the plan would have left the rebels holding a compact area of central Dublin, roughly bounded by the canals and the circular roads. However, this strategy would have required more men than the 1,600 or so who were actually mobilized on Easter Monday. As a result, the rebels left several key points within the city, notably Dublin Castle, Trinity College, and the old Parliament building in College Green in British hands. In the west of the country, local units with limited numbers and arms intended to try to hold the west bank of the river Shannon for as long as possible.

I don't believe the seizure of the Castle or Trinity was ever a part of the plan, so to give that as a 'result' is erroneous. I'm pretty sure I didn't leave out any (verifiable) specifics of battles. The other things you mention could well go back in, but again it's a question of where and how. Scolaire (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't aware that they ever planned to take the Castle or Trinity either. That they really should have is a different issue. Looking over the article again, I guess there isn't as much of some aspects removed as I thought at first (the annoying thing about diffs is that moving things around makes changes appear bigger than they are). That being said, I'd like to maybe see mention of the charge of the lancers on O'Connell St., the Mendicity Institution, some reference made to the first battalion's actions, and a little more detail in a few other areas. -R. fiend (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree to all of those - they are things that were never in the article, and I'm looking forward to them being added. Scolaire (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Rephrasing of Unionist opposition

I changed the bit about violet opposition to Home Rule to better reflect what the sources say (at least the source I have: Kee BFM p.170-2). While certainly some Tories encouraged violence, there's no evidence all of them did, and I didn't see any reference to violent opposition by Lords at all. The only group that can be said to be completely violently opposed were the Ulster Volunteers. All were generally opposed, but I've seen nothing stating that all were violently opposed, although Bonar Law and some others did use such language. -R. fiend (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Bonar Law didn't encourage violence, he threatened it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As did Churchill. --Domer48 (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to expand this paragraph, I'd like to see it re-worded to reflect the fact that the term "Unionist" in 1912 referred to the coalition of Tories and Liberal Unionists, which formally merged in 1912 to form the "Conservative and Unionist Party" (see History of the Conservative Party#The Unionist Ascendancy) more than the Irish Unionist Party or the Ulster Unionist Council. It was these English Unionists that provided most of the political opposition to the Home Rule Bill. Ulster unionists - with a small "u" - formed the UVF and were supported in their threats of violent opposition by Bonar Law and other members of his party in both the Commons and the Lords. Scolaire (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll give the exact text from Geraghty to avoid confusion:

[Bonar Law] spoke of resistance to Home Rule "beyond the restraints of the constitution". He added ominously "There are things stronger than parliamentary majorities". He justified this threat of force...."

Pretty clear you'd all agree? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a report in the New York Times quoting Lord Lansdowne as saying "that the opposition would not guarantee that Ulster's exclusion would prevent civil war". Not a threat of violence, exactly, but not exactly a repudiation of violence either. Note that, again, "civil war" did not necessarily mean civil war in Ireland only. Scolaire (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just got a copy of Irish Home Rule 1867-1921 by Alan O'Day, anyone read it yet, should be a lot in it on the above subject. --Domer48 (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've read bits of it in Google Books. I think it will bear out much of what I said above. See this page for instance, with its reference to Bonar Law leading the Unionists out of the House of Commons. Scolaire (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The basics !

The offical name is the " 1916 easter rising ".

It is called the easter rising because it took place in easter week.

It took place mainly in Dublin

It wasa rebellion against the British to win independence.

It went on for 6 days.

Yes there were bombings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.80.22 (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Inside the GPO building

My grandfather was inside the GPO building on the Monday, apparently the senior person present at the time (holidays allowing). He was upstairs when the incursion happened; on descending to see what the fuss was about, he saw the armed persons and said "Excuse me, I'm in charge here!" "By God, you're not, sir!" was the reply. He was escorted upstairs with the other personnel, all of whom were later let out (almost certainly by the O'Rahilly as he also told about the insistence on not robbing the safes - see the O'Rahilly article). He mentioned that the occupiers started to overprint the British stamps with "Irish Republic", and said he regretted never having dared to take a sheet as it might have been worth a lot afterwards. All the defaced stamps were later destroyed by him and the other senior employees. Jeremynicholas (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Belligerents

I have added Fianna Éireann and the Hibernian Rifles to the list of belligerents as they were both there. Service in the Hibernian Rifles during Easter Week qualified for a military pension under the Irish Free State Military Pension Act.EoinBach (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that it's useful to include everybody that "was there" in the infobox. John MacBride, for instance, was a leader, but he was not a member of any army. Should he and people like him be in the infobox individually? Did the Fianna or the Hibernian Rifles, as organisations, distinguish themselves in any way? If not, I'd be inclined to remove them. Scolaire (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The simple answer is yes they did 'distinguish' themselves as organisations. The Hibernian Rifles are important as they were an armed organisation which grew out of the Ancient Order of Hibernians (although split from them) and are an example of the reaction of forces not included in the planning of the rising. The fact that, though not involved, they worked out that something was a foot and paraded to join in is very important for understanding how other groups saw the rising, they were also mentioned in 'Irish War News' a bulletin published by the republican forces during Easter Week. As for the Fianna, they had a central role in the rising, the first 'action' of the rising was a raid on the Military Magazine in Phoenix Park and this was carried out by Fianna Éireann see http://www.phoenixparkbook.com/history.htm, the Fianna pretended that they were going to play football which allowed them to pass close to the fort on their way to a football pitch, as people didn't play football in the early morning the rising couldn't start until the Fianna had taken the fort and so couldn't start until 12:00 (this is recorded in the deposition given by Bob Holland in 1949 . The Fianna fought, and worked as messengers, through out Dublin during Easter Week. In Frongoch prisoners were given a form to fill in - here is how Bob Holland (a prisoner who fought in 1916 and was in Frongoch) describes the questions:

"Did you know for what purpose, 'The Irish Volunteers', 'Citizen Army', 'Hibernian Rifles', 'Clann-na-Gael', 'Fianna' or 'Cumann na mBan' were originated? Would you have joined these organisations if you had known that they were preparing to take up arms against H.M.Forces? ...." (I've taken this from Bob Holland's deposition given in 1949 which I have in my possession - I believe that this was originally taken for the purposes of the Irish military archives, however my copy has been signed and dated by him and witnessed by a 'Dan Walsh'.) As the British were specifically asking about the Hibernian Rifles and about the Fianna I think it is only right to include them in the list of combatants. I recognise that Clann-na-Gael are also mentioned but as this organisation was the American branch of the IRB I wouldn't include it as a combatant.

The 1934 Military Services Pension Act [17] defines the forces who were elligible for Military Pensions as

( a ) Oglaigh na hEireann (Irish Republican Army).( b ) The Irish Volunteers,( c ) The Irish Citizen Army, ( d ) Fianna Eireann, ( e ) The Hibernian Rifles, ( f ) Cumann na mBan;

I think that this is fairly conclusive proof of their belligerent status in the 1916 rising, the Irish state says that they were part of the state's armed forces!

I hope this is enough to show that both the Hibernian Rifles and the Fianna should be included in the list of belligerents. 81.104.164.93 (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. None of the reliable sources used for this article say that the Fianna were involved in the action at the Magazine Fort. Caulfield, for instance, devotes over four pages to this action, and only ever says "Volunteers". Similarly, of all the books I looked at only one - Foy and Barton - mentions the Rifles at all, and that only to say that they "were there". As for the Pensions Act, that's really a red herring; this article is not about eligibilty for pensions. Now, I'm sure these were all fine men and they deserve the gratitude of the nation, but that's not what it's about either. "Belligerents" are the forces that fought each other, and in all but one case those forces were the Volunteers/ICA and the British Army, the one exception being Ashbourne where it was the Volunteers and the RIC. Anybody else who joined the fighting, whether as individuals or groups, are deemed to have joined the Volunteers/ICA (sometimes referred to as the Irish Republican Army, although I personally think that's unnecessarily confusing) unless there is a reliable source that says "a party of x engaged troops of the nth Regiment on such-and-such a street on such-and-such a day." Adding names to the infobox just for the sake of it doesn't add anything to the article, it only adds to the clutter. Scolaire (talk) 10:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My attention has been drawn to a website which quotes extensively from the book 'Paddy Joe' by Jim Stevenson, pub 2006. The sites clear and verifiable proof of the role of at least one Fianna member, Seán McLoughlin, during Easter Week. I hope this site will suffice as 'verifiable' information as it includes photos of pages from other books and references them. I have also been advised of a number of sources for the role of the Fianna and of the Hibernian Rifles but am not in a position to refer to them at present as I don’t have some of them, and will need to go to an academic library (and hope it has them) to refer to them.
Soon after Sean came round from Dorset Street wearing a Sam Browne belt over the same old brown tweed suit of knickbockers wearing a green Fianna hat that was a size too small for his head. It made him look slightly ridiculous and we could not but smile at him. He was completely undisturbed and without any delay gave us the orders to fall in. Jimmy Brennan, Sean Derrington, Liam Derrington, Joe Byrne, Eddie Roach, Frank Cullen, Willie O'Dea, Thomas O'Kelly, Dick Balfe, Liam Staines and Willie Murnane, with Sean Heuston and myself, thirteen men in all of D Company, and Sean MacLoughlin of the Fianna, a total of 14. We marched down Temple Street, Hill Street, Gardiner Street and into Beresford Place http://www.1916-rising.co.uk/3-heustonsfort.html
The Rising by Desmond Ryan
“The despatch carriers were members of Fianna Éireann and Volunteers like Heuston himself, P. J. Stephenson and Seán McLoughlin
“It was in the spirit of the other fighters of Fianna Éireann in Easter week, one of whom lead his party from behind a Church Street barricade and shouted to his companions to the great astonishment of the British officer who took their surrender: “We have fired our last shot. We obey our leaders' orders to hand in our arms, and we expect only the treatment of the men of Ninety-Eight."
http://www.1916-rising.co.uk/4-rising.html
Extracts from The Mendicity Garrison 1916 by Fr.J.J. Heuston (OFM) - notations are by Paddy Joe
With Capt. Heuston in the Mendicity Institution there were also 3: ...... McLoughlin, Lieut, Sean, Commander 7th Sluagh, Dublin Battalion Fianna Éireann, later in the G.P.O.
http://www.1916-rising.co.uk/6-frjjheuston.html
I was there, radio transcript from RTE
It was about 11o’clock on Easter Monday morning when Dublin born Captain Sean Heuston marched away from Liberty Hall in Beresford Place, at the head of 13, of a possible, 40 members of D Company of the 1st Battalion, Dublin Brigade of the Irish Volunteers, and a boy of Fianna Eireann..
Tuesday came after a sleepless night of watching, just after day break Heuston inspected his position and apparently decided to hold on, a messenger was sent to report to GHQ at the Post Office and confirmation of his decision came early in the afternoon, when lead by the young Fianna scout 12 men of the Fingal Brigade under Lieutenant Dick Coleman ran the gauntlet of the encircling British Forces and reached the Mendicity without loss....
http://www.1916-rising.co.uk/7-radio.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by EoinBach (talk • contribs) 18:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you read what I wrote at all. "A boy" is not an army. There is no evidence here that 7th Sluagh, Dublin Battalion Fianna Éireann or any other sluagh fought in 1916, only one of its officers, fighting alongside the Irish Volunteers. Now, the quotes you have here are very interesting, and they certainly merit inclusion in a 500-page book, but not in a 5000-word article. And if it's not in the article, it shouldn't be in the infobox. End of story. Neither should the DMP, by the way. And I'm not convinced that Cumann na mBan was a "belligerent" either. Scolaire (talk) 07:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Both Cumann na mBan and Fianna Éireann took part in 1916. Both are mentioned in the latest publication on the subject The Impact of the 1916 Rising: Among the Nations, Edited by Ruan O'Donnell, Irish Academic Press, Dublin 2008, ISBN 978 0 7165 2965 1, pg 32 - 38. I can provide qoutes later if required? Hope this helps? --Domer48_'fenian' 08:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's missing the point! We need to see a simple statement of the type: "a party of x engaged troops of the nth Regiment on such-and-such a street on such-and-such a day." Otherwise they are not "belligerents". That they took part is not in question. Whether they belong in the infobox as belligerents is the only question. The women of the Citizen Army carried arms and fought alonside the men. There were no women in the Volunteers, and the women of Cumann na mBan were not allowed to fight. That is not to downplay their importance or their heroism. It's just not what the infobox is for. Members of the Fianna took part, fine. But no company of Fianna was sent into action anywhere. Therefore the Fianna as a body was not a belligerent. That is not to downplay their importance or their heroism. It's just not what the infobox is for. The fight was a straight fight between the Volunteers/ICA and the British. That's what the infobox should say, regardless of the contribution of others, whether individuals or groups. Scolaire (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that you are missing the point a 'Beligerent' in a war does not have to actually be engaged as a unit in armed fighting, although in the case of the Fianna they were involved in direct military actions as is shown by Seán McLoughlin and the attack on the magazine fort. A beligerent is one who renders military service in the combat zone - the Fianna were also working carrying dispatches between various commands and two of them were killed doing so and their graves are cared for by the National Graves Association. Anyone carrying dispatches between various commands is by any commonsense and the normal rules of war engaged in combat and is liable to be attacked, and indeed they do get attacked in such circumstances. The Fianna who turned out to take part in the events of Easter Week dis so as Fianna members as part of their duties to the Fianna and it is clear that they were there, and if so, then the Fianna were combatants. The same is true of the Hibernian Rifles who spent most of the week in the GPO (which was shelled) but who lost a member in an early action before they were pulled back to the GPO. The fact that they British were attacking them, that they were under arms and were rendering military service to the Republican Government in of itself means they were beligerents. If you want to remove them from the Info box then the best thing to do would be to remove the IRB, The Volunteers etc as well and replace it with something along the lines of 'Irish Republican Forces' and 'British Forces, British State Forces, Crown Forces or H.M. Forces' and then explain in a separate section who the Irish Republican Forces were, listing them and linking through to the various articles about them, and do the same for 'British State Forces' or 'Crown Forces' or 'H.M. Forces'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EoinBach (talk • contribs) 10:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is I disagree. The infobox is meant to be a concise summary, not an exhaustive list or a Roll of Honour. Adding more names, as I said before, doesn't add anything to the article, it only adds to the clutter. I'm not going to engage in any further discussion of "who was there" or "who did what". Scolaire (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As the quoted sections below show, both groups were active during the Rising as distinct groups. They were “Belligerents” and should be recognised as such. There are additional quotes which can be used to support their inclusion. Over 200 women took part in the rising, and took part in the fighting. I would suggest editors read if possible No Ordinary Women: Irish Female Activists in the Revolutionary Years 1900-1923, by Sinead McCoole, O’Brien Press, Dublin 2004, ISBN 0 86278 883 8. I again hope this information is useful, and will include additional information into the article on their active participation as I agree it is really lacking.

"The witness statements make it clear that they [Cumann na mBan] were kept as informed of developments as the men. Furthermore, it can be established that Cumann na mBan was, in fact, mobilized in two areas in the city. On the south side, members of the Inighinidhe na hEireann branch Cumann na mBan, under Captain Rose McNamara, obeyed orders to mobilize at the Weavers Hall in Cork Street at 10 am. Some ‘twenty-five members turned out and marched to Emerald Square to join the 4th battalion, Irish Volunteers, under the command of Eamonn Ceannt. They marched behind the men to a distillery building at Marrowbone Lane. Moreover, on the north side of the city the women were ordered to mobilise at Palmerston Place, which was in the vicinity of the Broadstone Railway station.”

“Most accounts commonly agree there were around forty to fifty participants in the Rising who came from Scotland. The majority and core group were made up of members of Na Fianna Eireann, the militant Irish boy scout organization of Countess Markicvicz and Bulmer Hobson, founded (or re-founded) in 1909. The second largest group comprised the Irish Volunteers of Glasgow and surrounding districts and lastly, the smallest component of the Scottish contingent included Cumann na mBan and Irish Citizen Army members, some of whom had been in Dublin for some time.” --Domer48_'fenian' 18:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Strength & casualties of the Irish forces

Strength: "1,250 in Dublin, c. 2-3,000 elsewhere, however the latter took little or no part in the fighting"

Casualties: "82 killed, 1,617 wounded, 16 executed"

How do the figures of 1,250 engaged and 1,617 wounded agree?

-Kfor (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe the casualties include civilians, who took the brunt of the abuse. -R. fiend (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Irishrep.jpg

The image Image:Irishrep.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Fianna and the Magazine Fort Raid

I have now sourced a reputable book which states that the Fianna took part in the Magazine Fort raid (and as I already noted I have in my possession a copy of a submission to the Military History Archives on the rising which says the same thing!) The source is 'Terrible Beauty, a life of Constance Markievicz' by Diana Norman, ISBN 0-340-39525-7, published by Hodder and Stoughton in 1987. Page 136

"Early on that Monday, during a raid on the Magazine Fort in Phoenix Park by a small number of Fianna and Volunteers, the seventeen-year-old son of one of the Fort's officers was gunned down and killed as he ran to get help. 'Poor lad', later said one of the Volunteers, 'We had no choice, had had to pay the penalty'. ...EoinBach (talk) 08:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Put it in the article, then. Scolaire (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Images

The recent removal/commenting out of the Irish Republic flag image, and the need to replace it, got me thinking about images in general. It seems to me this article is top-heavy with images of graves, memorials and plaques. It now also has an image of Michael Collins, in the uniform of Commander-in-Chief, as though he ran the show from start to finish. Ideally, I would like to take out most of these images and put in instead images of the actual leaders - Clarke, MacDermott, Connolly and Pearse - and places such as Stephen's Green (there's a contemporary photo of the Green on wiki that could be used). There's also a picture in Commons of soldiers sitting on a funny armoured car type thing. It seems to me that's more in keeping with the article. I would be inclined to keep maybe two of the other images: the grave in Arbour Hill for the "Aftermath" section and either the Children of Lir fountain or the ten-shilling coin for the "Legacy" section. What does anybody else think? Scolaire (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're basically on the right track here. We don't need so many images of memorials, and I was wondering about the Collins picture as well. His role in the Rising was a very minor one. It would be great if we could use some of the photographs taken during and after the Rising, but I'm not sure about the copyright on most of them. I'd be up for inclusion of some of the leaders as well, Clarke, Pearse, and Connolly, would be the best three. A contemporary picture of Stephens Green might not be bad, but I'm not sure of it's worth taking up space if we don't have a period one. We can experiment a bit. -R. fiend (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

All of the images I suggested are "period" and all of them are already on Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia Commons. See here for instance. Scolaire (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I misunderstood one of your statements. Anyway, the picture you linked to is good. It must be the makeshift armored car they built out of a boiler or brewing tank (I forget what it was exactly; it's mentioned by Caulfield). If we're to include that picture we should certainly mention the vehicle in the article. There are all sorts of other photos from various books I could try to upload. I suppose they would be fair use? -R. fiend (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend it. I'm pretty sure scanning photos from copyrighted books is not considered fair use in any circumstances. Fair use means things like scanning the book cover in lo-res to illustrate an article on the book itself. Scolaire (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The photos in the books would not be under the same copyright as the book itself, right? We're talking photos that are nearly 100 years old, reprinted in various books on the subject. If these images were in the public domain I think there wouldn't be an issue with copying them. I admit I've never studied copyright policy here thoroughly, as I've hardly ever uploaded anything. Well, I won't do anything about it now. I don't have a scanner anyway. -R. fiend (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

...and now we have an "image gallery"!! Come on, lads, are we trying to write a good article here or just have a laugh? The pics of the signatories could be usefully added - individually - to the body of the article; Michael Collins in the uniform of Commander-in-Chief just does not belong - put it in the Civil War article; and Harry Boland and Martin Savage - can anybody who isn't a lecturer in Irish History tell me what either of them did in 1916? I propose to delete the whole lot unless somebody makes an unassailable case for keeping them, or moves them to the article proper in a place where they make some sense. Scolaire (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Scoláire to a large degree about the images. I think that it would be fair enough to have some photos of the leaders, some photos of the different forces in situ in Dublin (or in the lead up to the rising). I see no reason to include photos of Michael Collins or anyone else unless they were very notable. There might be an argument for having another section something along the lines of "Notable participants in the rising" which would have links to the Wikipedia articles for notable participants on either side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EoinBach (talk • contribs) 23:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys. I reverted the addition of the image gallery - before I actually saw these notes. As pointed out, an "out of context" set of images (which included improperly formed syntax) doesn't sit well with the gallery guidelines. Relevant (and non-misleading) images should be added in-line and in-context. If they can be sourced. Tacking on a gallery at the end (in particular if it has potentially confusing images and bad syntax) isn't the way to go... Guliolopez (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Good on you! Scolaire (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

List of those executed

-There should be a list of the 16 executed or atleast all incorporated into the article..... -71.240.21.236 (talk) 04:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It used to be in the article text itself; it is now in the "Easter Rising" template at the bottom (click "show" at the right hand side). Scolaire (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

-Second the notion that the list of those executed should be added to the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvcalex (talk • contribs) 19:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It's in the "Easter Rising" template at the bottom - click "show" at the right hand side of the template to see it. Scolaire (talk) 06:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Paved the way to the Republic of Ireland

Would it be possible to add to the end of the first paragraph the fact that the Rising paved the way to Ireland´s independence? I´m not sure how to word it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.202.188.232 (talk) 11:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It would - except we're not all free yet! Ná déan dearmad orainn! 86.42.117.220 (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Desmond FitzG

I've cited his memoirs about life inside the GPO.Red Hurley (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of Flags

I don't think that there is any purpose in including the sunburst flag or for that matter the starry plough or any other banners or flags to represent the republican forces, they were all united under the tricolour and using all their individual flags will only make the page unmanageable.EoinBach (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Pretty well what I said about putting them in the infobox in the first place - they were all united under the Volunteers and ICA and that's the way it should have been left. Scolaire (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm,but this isn't quite correct, they weren't all united under the Volunteers and the ICA. The forces were all united under the term of Irish Republican Army during Easter week, however that didn't include Cumann na mBan or the Fianna (if I remember correctly) but having said that they were there, they were fighting, however they were all under the tricolour and under orders of the Provisional Government.EoinBach (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Sunday, 30 April

The second paragraph and infobox give 30 April as the end date of the Rising. Yet Pearse and company surrendered on 29 April, and I can find no mention of what further actions took place the following day. Spark240 (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is still very incomplete. The surrender order had to be brought to all of the rebel posts, and some of them did not surrender until Sunday the 30th. Scolaire (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)