Talk:Patrick Pearse/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"President of the Irish Republic” section

I have removed this. I can find no academic sources which advance this theory. It all stems from the Democratic Programme, which does not say whether it is referring to Pearse as president of the Provisional Government, or president of the Irish Republic. As Pearse was an IRB member, he would know that Denis McCullough would have to be president of the Republic. It then follows on with an uncheckable TV interview, which is again unclear as to which presidency is being referred to. I think this essay-like section which advances theories which are not covered in any detail by sources do not belong in an encyclopedia article. O Fenian (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue

How about everyone get away from discussions about motive and rather focus on the wider issue: what are the basic criteria for inclusion in these cats? For me the issue here is not about the motive (who cares what the motive is, so long as the edit fulfills our inclusion criteria), but that our cats are correctly, appropriately and accurately populated. The issue is similar to the old POW/criminal category discussions. They may have started out as individuals (on both sides) trying to score political points, but ultimately we were able to address the wider issues to ensure balance AND, as a bonus, stop the disruptive editing.

So if there is an opinion that these cats should not be for people whose parents were from another country, then fine. But for those of you who are arguing that, could you articulate on what basis one should be included (in your opinion)? We need objective criteria, not case by case vetos on the basis of political ideology of the subject. If we can get some idea of the different perspectives, then we can take this to a more central venue and achieve some sort of consensus that we can then use to maintain consistency and stop these sort of arguments in future. Everyone likes to claim that their motives are to help the project, so lets actually do something about it than perpetuate these pointless, personal disagreements. Rockpocket 18:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

My view is that the clearest case for inclusion is that of people who were born in one country, of parents (one or both) who came from another. Jay Leno and David Duchovny may not be the first people who spring to mind when one thinks of Americans of Scottish descent (always assuming one ever does think of Americans of Scottish descent) but their respective mother's were both born in Scotland. Irvine22 (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

In that case move the discussion to the category and in the meantime there is no consensus for its inclusion. --Snowded ^TALK 22:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree no consensus for the inclusion of the cat. BigDunc 22:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. Rather that argue on a case by case basis, I'm asking for your input towards forming a consensus for what criteria would result in inclusion (since you are objecting to the parental birth criteria that appears to be the standard for other individuals).Therefore seemed prudent to invite your input first. If you are uninterested in anything other than ensuring Pearse isn't included, then we can have that discussion elsewhere and revisit his particular case when the benchmarks have been clarified. Your choice. Rockpocket 23:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they are objecting to the parental birth criteria for inclusion. They haven't said why they object to inclusion, other than that inclusion is somehow "provocative". How it is provocative is likewise unexplained. It seems to be a case of "just don't like it." Irvine22 (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Per Snowded above. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep lets move it on. BigDunc 23:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the people who support including it have presented a rationale and have proven that its verifiable and used in a similar sense across the project. So far the people who want to keep it out have not presented any rationale at all other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That isn't how an encyclopedia is supposed to be built. Wikipedia is simply here to present verifiable information to the world, removed from political bias (for instance, the fact that Pearse's English descent conflicts with dogmatic tenants of Republicanism isn't of concern to an encyclopedia). This particular piece of information passes with flying colours. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Yorkshirian. Irvine22 (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(BTW I notice that Tom Clarke is in the category "People from the Isle of Wight".) Irvine22 (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

FFS, might be something to do with the fact he was born there. BigDunc 12:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Irvine, do you have any info on the backgrounds of Joseph Mary Plunkett and Edward Thomas Kent (psuedoname "Éamonn Ceannt"). These seem to be names of English origin too (especially Kent). Suspicious how there are so few people of Gaelic stock in 1916, only marginally more than 1798 (which was essentially a coup d'état by the borgeiouse against the aristocracy, both groups of largely the same ethnic stock). Just about all of 1916 people seem to be borgeiouse too with suspiciously strong British ancestry or other such links. Never really thought about this before, outside Connolly being Marxist and Scottish, which set alarms ringing. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Its fine. The issue will be resolved by establishing a consensus on standardized criteria. That is what moving on entails, its just sad that some progress could not be made towards that here. But once that is done, we can determine whether Pearse (and anyone else) meets that criteria without all the subjective IDONTLIKEIT bullshit. That will decide whether it gets added or not, not some case-by-case notion of consensus depending on whether it suits one's political bent.

Last time this sort of dispute happened the people who were invested in their petty page by page battles got left behind and a strong centralized consensus, which has held to this day, settled the issue for them. Given some of the same people involved now were involved then you would think those lessons would have been learned, but apparently not. The difference is, of course, any fool can shout "No!", every five minutes; but it takes a lot more effort and thought to come up with constructive solutions to problems. I'll open a discussion on this tonight at the appropriate venue, and will be happy to inform anyone who has something constructive to add. Rockpocket 00:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree that petty politically motivated point scoring on a page by page basis is undesirable. Opening a centralised discussion is the most sensible way and I assume you will notify involved editors. --Snowded ^TALK 08:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you set this up yet Rockpocket? I doubt there will be a consensus reached to delete all the ancestral origins cats, there seem to be so many developed articles on them, for instance African American or French Canadian. I suppose certain people are just going to have to get over the fact that Pearse was an "Irish person of English descent" and live with it. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't yet, mainly because I'm trying to come up with a workable proposal. I'll post a link from here when I manage to put something together. Until this gets resolved, I would suggest editors avoid warring over adding the category. I would remind all editors on the conditions explained at the top of this page, both about reverting and that specifically that "all editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions." Therefore I anticipate (and expect) the advice of neutral parties on defining inclusion criteria will be respected on this page. Rockpocket 22:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Conor Cruise O'Brien

Removed weasel wording. O'Brien was commenting on the attitudes of his family, not his own personal views. Description of O'Brien as a Unionist also dubious. While briefly a member of the UKUP he resigned after publishing an article that unionists should seek a negotiated united Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adiamanus (talk • contribs) 06:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup of personal life

I haven't perused this article in some time, and it seems to me the personal life section needs work. It's poorly organized, going from Edwards accusations of homosexuality with an immediate and awkward segue into a spiel on Eveleen Nichols, which though related is a different issue (which is probably given undue weight in any case). Then it goes into "Little Lad of Tricks", which is relevant only in reference to the homosexual accusations (which it doesn't even mention). The whole thing is basically a bunch of quotes strung together. I'm going to take a pass at cleaning it up. I'm open to suggestions on what to do. -R. fiend (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"Take a pass at cleaning it up" is not the same as removing the whole section. What I suggest you do is re-write it of wiki or in a sand box and then either put it here and ask for suggestions or be bold and just post it. Now I'll replace the text later, and we can discuss it, or you take either of the two options suggested above. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not remove the entire section, but I did remove a lot of irrelevant information. His exact relationship with Nicholls is both unknown and unimportant. There is probably a little more that could be said about it, but not much. It was not a terribly significant aspect of his life, and way too much verbage was being wasted to say almost nothing. The entire speculation about homosexuality deserves about a couple sentences. It isn't important, but the theory about his sexual oreitnation is well known enough that it would be remiss for us not to at least mention it. Including several poorly written and poorly organized paragraphs about things that are unknown and cannot be known is useless and unencyclopedic. What specifically would you like to see addressed in this section? If I have time tonight I'll take out Edwards book (the only source used in the entire section, which was basically an unconnected string of quotes from her book) and see if this Nicholls situation warrants much more than a couple sentences, and if I can write a decent paragraph or two if it does. I'm a bit surprised a section like this, citing only Edwards, who's been accused of writing a hatchet job, is desirable. In the meantime, let me know what you'd like to see in this section. -R. fiend (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

While I have no idea whether Pearse was gay or not, surely it must be pointed out that he was only 36 when he was executed, many straight men display little interest in the opposite sex until their late 30's when they decide its time to settle down. As far Dudley Edwards claims, its hard to attribute a certain sexuality to a person who has been dead for over 90 years, and since no evidence exists to prove Pearse was gay (or bisexual), she comes up with this ridiculous unprovable notion of an "unconscious homosexual", which you could really say about any man who was single and died in his mid 30's. Her dubious claims should be treated with utmost suspicion. Snappy (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not sure about the veracity of the idea that many men have no interest in the opposite sex until their late 30s, our main concerns about this matter need be whether the theory is notable enough to warrant mention in a brief synopsis of his life (I'd say it deserves brief mention), whether it is reliably sourced (it is), whether it is given undue weight (the 2 sentences covering it seem to be about right to me), and whether it is free of original research. It is not the place for Wikipedia to endorse or deny this, just to cover it. -R. fiend (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles ought to be balanced and the inclusion of the claim of alleged homosexuality of Pearse by Ruth Dudley Edwards isn't. It's akin to referencing Fred A. Lechter Jr. in an article on the holocaust. R.D. Edwards is a rabid anti-Republican and would be extremely critical of Pearse. Her book is junk and has been referred to as such by other prominent historians. The claim by Edwards of Pearse's supposed homosexuality is entirely predicated on her interpretation of a certain poem of his. She is a former British civil servant and not a literature professor, much less an historian. This claim is the invention of a revisionist historian. If you are going to include a few lines on this rubbish, you are obliged to include a line or two on Pearse's engagement with Miss Nichols. After all, this engagement was attested to her own brother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.236.104 (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ruth Dudley Edwards' journalism reveals her sweet tooth for gossip so consistently that I can't help wondering if it doesn't sometimes mark her professional academic work as well: historians are human. Regardless, while Pearse's sexuality may be unimportant now, whatever it was, the debate about it is such a lively aspect of present reflections on his life that a brief mention is required in this article, so long as it is identified clearly as speculation, because to do otherwise would be wilful suppression. --O'Dea (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Obsession with Dudley Edwards

Too much of this article is concerned with 'rebutting' Dudley Edwards, which suggests that it is guarded, protected, and written by particularly obscure and unrepresentative Republicans. I suggest the article takes a more informative tone, and rejects the advocacy it currently pursues. Furthermore, too much is made of Dudley Edward's Unionism, her biography was welcomed across the spectrum and was pioneering in its novelty and the various questions it asked. Desmond Ryan, a student and admirer of Pearse, said some very similar things a generation before, so please have some perspective. 86.40.207.29 (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that too much is made of RDE's Unionism. I don't see how its terribly relevant. You can read the entire biography she wrote without the slightest notion of Unionism shining through. While the book doesn't necessarily take the rosiest view of Pearse, it's hardly a hatchet job. I'm not sure what your comments about "guarded, protected, and written by particularly obscure and unrepresentative Republicans" are all about. This is a collaborative article, and people of various backgrounds and views have made substantial contributions. If you have some specific points you'd like addressed by all means state them here. -R. fiend (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm referring to the slightly hysterical remarks concerning Edwards, and this somewhat curious passage;

Pearse in his address to his court martial and his prediction of future events in history would no doubt contrast Edwards assertion - When I was a child of ten I went down on my knees by my bedside one night and promised God that I should devote my life to an effort to free my country. I have kept that promise. First among all earthly things, as a boy and as a man, I have worked for Irish freedom. I have helped to organize, to arm, to train, and to discipline my fellow countrymen to the sole end that, when the time came, they might fight for Irish freedom. The time, as it seemed to me, did come and we went into the fight. I am glad that we did, we seem to have lost, we have not lost. To refuse to fight would have been to lose, to fight is to win, we have kept faith with the past, and handed a tradition to the future… I assume I am speaking to Englishmen who value their own freedom, and who profess to be fighting for the freedom of Belgium and Serbia. Believe that we too love freedom and desire it. To us it is more desirable than anything else in the world. If you strike us down now we shall rise again and renew the fight. You cannot conquer Ireland; you cannot extinguish the Irish passion for freedom; if our deed has not been sufficient to win freedom then our children will win it by a better deed Furthermore I think there is little doubt that Republicans hold an un-natural sway over editorial decisions here, as they have mastered 'wiki-law' and are geniuses at 'bending' the policies they quote and cite at every and any opportunity. Its very clever, and dishonest of course, but they have singlehandedly ruined any chance of balance or intellectual restraint on articles relating to Irish history on this encyclopedia. I know, I've fought on wiki trenches against these guys, they don't play nice. 86.40.207.29 (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You know, I think that whole section is pretty pointless, and not assembled well. I'd like to get some other input on it, though. ("Other considerations" is a piss-poor heading to boot.) An excerpt from a speech he made at his court martial could be relevant, but linking it to Dudley-Edwards seems like a stretch, and I'm not sure it's significant enough to warrant inclusion necessarily. Let's give it a couple days and see if anyone else wants to weigh in. In the meantime, disparaging statements about a group of editors doesn't tend to be terribly productive, though I do realize that there has been some republican POV pushing in articles dealing with these topics. -R. fiend (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a fact that RDE has written the only comprehensive biography of Pearse, apart from Louis Le Roux's 1932 hagiography. It is also a fact that is was very definitely a hatchet job: the woman was incapable of writing three consecutive paragraphs without making reference to Pearse's incompetence, or his delusions, or his insincerity etc. Having said that, this is an article about Pearse, not Dudley Edwards. Ideally, she should not be mentioned at all in the article. She should be cited only in regard to matters of fact, not opinion e.g. "because their judgement was superior to those of the population at large, they were entitled to use violence." The "Others [sic] considerations" section should be deleted with extreme prejudice; it adds nothing to the article. I note that the OP has been blocked for IP-hopping and disruption, so I don't think anything more needs to be said about his/her worldview. Scolaire (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

While I think "critical biography" is a better term than "hatchet job" (which I think applies to works like Michael Moore Hates America and books by guys like Dick Morris) I see your point. I haven't read RDE's book in more than a decade, so my memory of it isn't exactly fresh. Nor have I read through this article in some time, and I imagine, as always, it could use some work. Deleting "Others considerations" would be fine with me, but before undertaking a removal of that size I think it's fair to give others an opportunity to defend it. There's other work to be done on this article too, but I imagine it won't be easy. I seem to recall that getting the Personal Life section from "awful" to its current state of "not very good" was more trouble than it should have been, and it still needs work. This should be tackled at some point, though. -R. fiend (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems no one is eager to defend the section, so I'll go ahead and remove it. That will probably bring some opposition to the table. -R. fiend (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the first full biography of Pearse since Dudley Edwards has just been published (Sept 2010): "Patrick Pearse: The Making of a Revolutionary" by Joost Augusteijn (Palgrave Macmillan). The blurb suggests it contains a lot of new information on his early life and family as well as setting Pearse in the context of early 20th-century European nationalist thought. If anyone can get hold of a copy, it might be a good source to take into account in the article and would balance out the Dudley Edwards references a bit. 131.111.1.66 (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like anyone cam get it Nov. from Amazon. Sounds like something this article could use. A bit expensive though. -R. fiend (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No doubt someone will get it at some stage, and then make extensive edits to the article based on what they read. If it goes to form, though, the edits won't balance RDE, they'll just be a random collection of "look what I read!" facts. We already have the sources to make this a readable and factual article on Pearse instead of a line by line refutation of RDE, all it needs is somebody to actually do it. And here I'll hold my hand up and say, "it probably won't be me, not soon anyway." Scolaire (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, no doubt that could be a result, but I don't think it need be. I don't think we need a line by line refutation of RDE, but we could use a complete biography on Pearse that is more impartial than RDE's, which right now is all we have as far as complete books go. A few years ago I'd buy it and get to work myself, but that's unlikely to happen any time soon. -R. fiend (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, as usual I have failed to express myself well. I was trying to say that what we had in the past was a "line by line refutation of RDE", and the residue of it is still there now. But I don't think we need to rush out and buy the new biography in order to replace that. There are plenty of good, reliable, academic or at least well-researched books that are not biographies of Pearse - and that we can find on Google Books - that will give us factual, non-biased info to replace whatever "Dudley Edwards says...but on the other hand..." content there still is in this article. Scolaire (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

'Question of sexuality' section

Having dealt with the "Others considerations" section I think it's high time to revisit the Question of sexuality section. Is there a biography anywhere else on Wikipedia that does not have a "Personal life" section but does have a "Question of sexuality" section? It's very queer, if you ask me (pun intended). As with "Others considerations", this section appears to be a critique of RDE's book rather than a bigraphical section on the man himself. It should be possible to re-write this as a "Personal life" section dealing with his relationships with his brother, his mother and (if we must) Eveleen Nicholls, and without block-quotes of poetry or editorials. Speculation on his orientation can then be referred to, without it dominating the section. Scolaire (talk) 06:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That section has been a mess for as long as I can remember. By all means fix it. It seems contentious editing in these sorts of articles has died down considerably of late, so this might be a good time to get stuff done. I think the whole homosexuality thing can be covered in a couple sentences. Mention accusations and speculation based on his bachelorhood and perceived homoeroticism in a couple poems while pointing out there is no solid evidence of homosexuality. Perhaps a one sentence mention of Nicholls, if warranted. We can fill out the section with the other things you mentioned, and other aspects for his personal life. -R. fiend (talk) 11:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The main source claiming his homosexuality comes from Ruth Dudley Edwards, a woman whose political agenda is the polar opposite of Pearse's world view, a neutral source would be more useful in determining the question of his sexuality. But why does it even matter , he isn't in any way notable for his sexuality anyway, but as the father of a nation, and a true patriot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.239.7.3 (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The entire section should be removed. Its just something fabricated by someone who is anti Pearse. --MFIreland (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Date of birth/marriage

How can he have been born in 1879 and married for the second time in 1877? STLbearsguy (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Pearse's father was married for the second time in 1877. But you're right, that paragraph is very confusing and should be rewritten. Scolaire (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Patrick Pearse.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Patrick Pearse.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 4 July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This image appeared on the front page of the Weekly Irish Times, Vol.44.0.2,078, Dublin, Saturday April 29, 1916. So it is out of copyright under the 70 year rule as far as I'm aware.--Domer48_'fenian' 08:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

English descent

Shouldn't Pearse be included in Category:Irish people of English descent? The article currently makes clear that his father was an Englishman from Birmingham. Irvine22 (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be on one of your campaigns at the moment. Working through any page for any nationalist and finding something to make them glaswegian, english etc. In this case his father emigrated to Ireland before he was born, its not particularly relevant, his nationality and upbringing are clearly Irish. --Snowded ^TALK 14:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, so he was in fact an Irish person of English descent. You might not think that the various "descent" categories are relevant or necessary, but they are in use on Wikipedia and Pearse clearly fits into the Category:Irish People of English descent. I do find it interesting that so many iconic nationalist leaders (Pearse, Connolly, Valera) have such cosmopolitan family backgrounds, with as many or more connections to Britain, The U.S., Cuba etc as to Ireland. It's a bit like Stalin being a Georgian, Hitler being Austrian and Bonaparte being a Corsican, innit?Irvine22 (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

`What is the campaign going to be next month? Before your last ban it was using the category Irish Criminals, now its various aspects of descent no matter how tenuous. What is the next label you plan to apply? --Snowded ^TALK 15:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Pearse's English descent is hardly tenuous: his father was an Englishman. A Brummie, no less. (Or should that be "no more"?)Irvine22 (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me Irvine, but I need some assurances from you (see your talkpage). GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2009

As there appears to be no further commment forthcoming, and no apparent dispute about Pearse's English heritage - which is already refered to in the body of the article - I'm calling this discussion resolved in favor of including Pearse in the Category:Irish People of English descent. Irvine22 (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Do ya have a consensus for that? it's better to be sure. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No he doesn't and if he even read the criteria for the Cat he would see it doesn't belong here. BigDunc 14:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

BigDunc, do you dispute that Pearse was an Irish person? Or that his father was English?Irvine22 (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No, read the cat. BigDunc 15:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I note that you don't dispute that Pearse was an Irish person or that his father was English. I read the cat. He seems clearly to fit. Why do you think otherwise? Irvine22 (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting, actually, if you compare the contents of Category:English people of Irish descent to the Category:Irish people of English descent. Many of the individuals in the former category do appear to mirror Pearse's situation (born in England of some Irish heritage), so could someone explain to me why exactly, he shouldn't he be in this cat? Personally, I find all of these X people of Y descent categories more about POV pushing than adding encyclopaedic value, but if we are going to have them we should ensure the standards are applied in a balanced manner. Rockpocket 17:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Once more READ THE CAT. BigDunc 17:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I see it now, apparently the cat is specifically for "citizens of the Republic of Ireland" (which of course, Pearse was not). This is somewhat anomalous, however, given that the other cats of the same type do not specifically require citizenship. Furthermore, we are told ad infinitum that "Irish" is a nationality and/or demonym that should refer to individuals from the entire island, not just the Irish state. Its somewhat ridiculous that he is rightly described as an Irish person in the lead ("was an Irish teacher, barrister, poet, writer, nationalist and political activist") yet is not deemed an "Irish person" when it is related to his English heritage! I have no idea why this would be, do you? (those italics are meant to represent sarcasm.)

Again, if we are going to have these cats, we should ensure the standards are applied in a balanced manner. This sort of wordplay to reflect political agendas reflects poorly on everyone. Rockpocket 17:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely right. And as Pearse wasn't a citizen of the Irish Republic that would mean he was, what, a British subject throughout his life? Is there a Category:British subjects from Ireland? Irvine22 (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wait now. The article says that Pearse was "President of the Irish Republic". Can you be that without being a citizen of the Irish Republic? Irvine22 (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

While this is offensive to conservative people who live in England, I suppose if its referenced put it in. Almost all of the post-Jacobite "leaders" of bourgeoise power grabs ("rebellions") in Ireland have been immigrant or non-Gaelic stock. Strangely extending to some of those who sing about it like the Wolfe Tones, Brian Warfield of course has a family originating from Warfield, Berkshire. I'm guessing Snowded is opposed because if he had an article, he'd be in the category "Welsh people of English descent". The English abroad are a curious case. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

BigDunc just tried to cover up the above, in an attempt to make the talkpage more favourable to his personal stance. Just to clarify, I'm in full solidarity with Rockpocket and Irvine22's position. If it is referenced, add it to the article—Pearse is quite clearly of English extraction, being that his father was an Englishman. Just as the Gallagher brothers from Oasis are of Irish extraction. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't give a shit what you agree with the CAT is not going in. BigDunc 19:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Fortunetly for the project, one user doesn't get to just dictate what is "allowed". Users reach a consensus by discussing rationale. Pearse was an Irish person of English descent. Do you agree? If this is the case, he obviously belongs in a category which is titled "Irish people of English descent". This is simple common sense. Just as Pete Doherty is in a category for "English people of Irish descent" and so on. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian, you have a common sense approach. To be fair, even BigDunc doesn't dispute that Pearse was in fact an Irish person of English descent. His attempt to keep Pearse out of the category hinges on a technicality that has now been effectively exposed as an anomolay by Rockpocket.Irvine22 (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• FOR THE LAST TIME READ THE CAT. BigDunc 20:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Shouting really isn't very helpful, Dunc, considering the discussion above. The simple solution to that roadblock is to bring the cat into line with the use of "Irish" that is used across the rest of Wikipedia. Do you object to that? Rockpocket 22:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Has anybody considered deleting these categories? They seem more troublesome, then they're worth. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That would need to be done centrally, rather than on a piecemeal basis. However, having surveyed every other Category:Irish people by ethnic or national origin, the English one is the only one that had the bizarre definition of Irish people that is entirely at odds with the use of the term elsewhere in Wikipedia. Therefore I have brought that cat into line with all the others. If there is some objection to that (and I can't wait to hear justifiable reasons why England is unique in this regard), then please make it at the talk page. Rockpocket 22:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The category says "This page lists Irish people who are of English ethnicity or national origin.". Having a father who emigrated to Ireland from Birmingham before you were nborn does not fall into that category. --Snowded ^TALK 22:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on that (since its all semantic, really) other than to point out that 99% of those people in Category:English people of Irish descent appear to be in exact mirror of that situation. I'm struggling to understand this disconnect that is apparently so clear to others. Rockpocket 23:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

What would fall into the category, if not having an English parent? Mooretwin (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There are few people in the category and I am dubious about its value. It would clearly cover Pearse's father for example. --Snowded ^TALK 23:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Pearse's father was an an English person living in Ireland, surely? Would you suggest that, say, Terry Wogan is an "English person of Irish descent?" Irvine22 (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Its a subcat of Category:People of English descent which says "This category includes articles on people who (or whose ancestors) emigrated from England to other countries." This would appear in include individuals whose parent(s) moved to Ireland. This whole system of cats if a POV-fest, in my opinion, but for as long as we have to put up with them we should do our best to be consistent and not use them for political point scoring. Rockpocket 23:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

OK then lets add "People of Welsh extraction" to the entry on St Patrick, or for that matter anyone in the North of protestant descent should be "People of Scottish Extraction". We have Irvine22 (and one IP which is Irvine22) attempting to use categories to make political points. He did that before on "Irish Criminals" just before the last ban. Now we have him searching out nationalists to make them English or Scottish (this is not the only article). Its a provocative series of edits. The category adds nothing of value, it is being used to create tension. It is not necessary to add it. There is no wikipedia policy that says that any category which applies has to be there, its down to the editors. The article has done well without it, there is no need or value in adding it. --Snowded ^TALK 23:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, there are a number of theories about the birthplace and provenance of St Patrick, ranging from Brittany to Strathclyde. Also, by no means all Protestants in N.I. are of Scottish descent, and those that are are pretty distant. Pearse's father was an Englishman, born and bred, as the article currently notes. That makes Pearse of direct English descent, in the patrilineal line. The commonsense application of the category as advocated by Rockpocket seems to me to be the obvious way to go here. And you need to work on leaving your personal issues with me at the door, when we are discussing content. Plus the obvious value in adding Pearse to the category is that it is accurate and might help people who are searching for information about Irish people of English descent to find the article.Irvine22 (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Not very convincing argument. I think the real point is that some republicans (and their associates) have a certain rarified worldview—Anglophobia is a strong tenant of this worldview and it kind of "spoils the party" a bit that Pearse and others had sassenach blood oozing through their veins. It is verifiable that Pearse was an Irish person of English descent, his father was an Englishman. If somebodies "feelings are hurt" over that, or if its in an incovinence for the political stances of some, then thats really too bad. We're here to provide verifiable information for an encyclopedia, not nurse sensitive souls. See, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well it convinced me, and lay off the conspiracy theories. This is a matter of (i) what adds value to the article and (ii) dealing with a series of provocative edits. --Snowded ^TALK 00:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It really isn't a very convincing argument, considering (i) categorization is primarily about article organization and location, if there is verifiable content in the article that we can use to categorize we should, and (ii) WP:V is a core policy and does not depend on who made the edit. There is questionable value in adding any category about descent, since there is no well established consensus on how far back one can go to establish it. But there is nevertheless a huge number of cats about descent and they are hugely populated. There is no good reason whatsoever that Irish people of English descent is any more of a problem than English people of Irish descent, so long as it is verified.

What I find remarkable is that a non-controversial category about parental descent is considered some heinous provocation. To perfectly honest, the problem with Irvine's "provocative" edits are not actually the edits themselves (which - like other unnamed editors in this sphere - range from childish to amusingly subversive to actually quite constructive, but most can be dealt with in a reasoned manner without the need for drama). The aggravating issue is the Pavlovian, disproportionate outrage all his edits draw. Do you really think Pearse would give two shits about us documenting his parental descent; its not as if one can choose where one's parents were born after all. We really could do with more focus on the content, rather than the contributor. Rockpocket 01:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, the value it adds to the article is that it is accurate, placing Pearse in a category in which he clearly belongs, and in which people who are seeking information about Irish people of English descent may find him. Also, I really don't see what is provocative about adding Pearse to the category. The article already refers to his English descent, and it is a matter of historical fact that his father was an Englishman.Irvine22 (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2009

What exactly is the problem with adding the category? So what if he was of English descent? Why is that problematic? Mooretwin (talk) 08:29, 27 October 2009

(UTC) ⬅I think it adds nothing - as I said above it is hardly used. And while it is not at the normal level of Irvine22's use of categories as provocation, however it is one and should not be encouraged and given the edit history was clearly intended as such. It is one of a series of edits on nationality, so its obvious the current vehicle of this editors POV campaign.. Incidentally I don't see this as an issue of drama or pavlovian responses. I've stated my view here, it adds nothing, it is a little used template and its insertion was provocative. --Snowded ^TALK 08:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

What's provocative about the fact that Pearse's dad was English?Irvine22 (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The article currently makes clear that his father was an Englishman, however Pearse was not! Simple as! --Domer48_'fenian' 13:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Right: Pearse was an Irish person of English descent. Irvine22 (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll not be feeding you anymore. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Translation: you can't or won't say what is "provocative" about the fact that Pearse was of English descent.Irvine22 (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Elimination of all those categories, should be given consideration, IMO. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It is the misuse by trolls trying to push an agenda that is the problem not the Cats, the addition here is purely provocative, but saying that GD be bold and put the up for deletion. BigDunc 15:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, BigDunc, there you are. Maybe you can tell us what you find "provocative" about the plain fact that Pearse was of English descent? (Snowded and Domer48 seem strangely reluctant to address the question). Irvine22 (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm so glad Irvine22 choked on that peanut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.228.74 (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Reason Why he is always pictured sideways.

My ma told me "Pearse was always photoed sideways, because he was crosseyed", obviously this would be original research and could not be added to the article. I imagine people would be curious as to why he was usually photographed in this manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.146.200 (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, she's not far off. Reliable sources indicate that he had, if I recall, a droopy eyelid, or something of the sort. That is the actual reason he was almost always featured as a profile. I'm not sure it's significant enough to be mentioned, but I'll look for an exact citation for it. -R. fiend (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Pictures (generally group shots) do exist of Pearse in front view and there is certainly something about the alignment of his eyes that suggests he may have suffered from something like strabismus. It's also evident if you look closely at the famous photo of him in his BA robes (which is taken in 3 quarter view). The only high quality front-on photo I could find online is this one of him as a boy. The glasses obscure things a bit, but it looks like he is slightly crosseyed. I'm not sure if photographs would do as references though. It would be worth mentioning. After all, those profile shots of Pearse have become very iconic, not least because they project an image of a visionary staring away from the viewer into the distance. ANB (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That picture of him as a boy is a real find. He looks very English in it. Irvine22 (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I copied that picture of Pearse in his barrister's robes into imaging software, magnified it by four using quality bicubic resampling, brightened it, and could see nothing unusual about his eyes. I looked inquiringly at the clearer frontal picture of him as a boy, and saw nothing odd. He may have had unusual eyes, but unlike the contributor above, I can't see it in these photographs. --O'Dea (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe he mentions in the brief autobiography he wrote that he had a childhood illness that affected his eyes, causing him to always pose in profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.144.38 (talk) 04:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Edits of March 2015

I don't think it's even controversial to say that some of the more critical historians have seen him as ultra-religious, so can 86.41.147.42 explain why he/she has removed that word again and again and again? --Scolaire (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This might be of interest

I am not enamoured with Wikipedia as I see literally hundreds of errors in its entries. As I remind many, it is far from a good reference source and really is to be avoided by serious researchers. Nevertheless, I felt this might be of interest as I am speaking at the 1916 commemorations in Dublin next year - 2016. Do with it as you will as I very infrequently stumble across Wikipedia:

Pádraig Pearse was an Irish teacher, barrister, poet, writer, nationalist and political activist and one of the leaders of the Easter Rising.

Patrick Henry Pearse was born in Dublin. His surname is still common in Cornwall. His father James, a Catholic convert, was from a Cornish nonconformist family and a stonemason, who held certain moderate home rule views and his mother, Margaret, was from an Irish-speaking family in County Meath. James Pearse was himself the son of a Cornish Methodist. Many inaccurate historical records often indicate that Pearse was part Englishman, that his father was from Birmingham. The truth is that he was not! Padraig Pearse was of Cornish and Irish blood.

When eventually the Easter Rising did erupt on Easter Monday, 24 April 1916, having been delayed by one day due to fears that the plot had been uncovered, it was Pearse, as President, who proclaimed a Republic from the steps of the General Post Office, headquarters of the insurgents, to a bemused crowd. When, after several days fighting, it became apparent that victory was impossible, he surrendered, along with most of the other leaders. Pearse and fourteen other leaders, including his brother Willie, were court-martialled and executed by firing squad. Thomas Clarke, Thomas MacDonagh and Pearse himself were the first of the 'rebels' to be executed, on the morning of 3 May 1916. Pearse was 36 years old at the time of his death.

Pádraig Pearse  wrote these words in 'The Spiritual Nation' published in 1916 by Whelan & Son of Dublin:

'Freedom is a condition which can be lost and won and lost again; nationality is a life which, if once lost, can never be recovered. A nation is a stubborn thing, very hard to kill; but a dead nation does not come back to life, any more than a dead man. There will never again be a Ligurian nation, nor an Aztec nation, nor a Cornish nation'.

The near death of his father's and grandfather's Nation and fate of the Cornish people may well have inspired this man to take up the cause for Ireland.'

Sources: 'The Collected Works of Padraic H Pearse' Padraic H Pearse 1922 ISBN 1304578712

        'The Spiritual Nation' Padraic H Pearse 1916 Whelan & Son of Dublin (held at University College, Cork)

        'Dividing Ireland - World War One and Partition' Thomas Hennessy Professor of British and Irish History ISBN 9780415198806

        'The government formally recognises the distinct identity of Cornish people' HMG Official Press Release 
         24 April 2014

I will leave the rest to you. Cllr Mike Chappell (talk) 01:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Cllr Mike. You say that "inaccurate historical records" indicate his father was from Birmingham. Can you point us to a reliable source (a book from a reputable publisher, a peer-reviewed journal) that sets the record straight i.e. shows that he was definitely from Cornwall, not from Birmingham or London?

As for "English blood", those are Patrick Pearse's own words. As you can see from this article in History Ireland, he wrote that "when my father and mother married there came together two very widely remote traditions—English and Puritan and mechanic on the one hand, Gaelic and Catholic and peasant on the other", and later, in a satirical letter to himself, he said, "When you come among them you bring a dark cloud with you that lies heavily on them . . . Is it your English blood that is the cause of this I wonder."

By the way, if you want to be listened to, it's usually a good idea not to start by insulting the people you are addressing. Scolaire (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Pearse and boys (Toibin article in London Review of Books)

I added Colm Toibin's March 31st article in The London Review of Books as a source for Pearse's additional motivation for founding St Enda's: simply that he liked boys and wanted to spend time with them. This was reverted. I think Toibin's article is excellent and I intend to restore the reverted material, and add additional information from Toibin's article in due course, after appropriate time for discussion. The article is here -

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n07/colm-toibin/after-i-am-hanged-my-portrait-will-be-interesting

"Since (Pearse) liked boys, besides writing about them and kissing them, he took a serious interest in their education and their welfare. ‘To me a boy is the most interesting of all living things,’ he wrote, ‘and I have for years found myself coveting the privilege of being in a position to mould or help to mould, the lives of boys to noble ends.’ "

Clearly, the man was a devoted pedagogue and the article should reflect this aspect of his passion. Miles Creagh (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Tóibín is a professor of creative writing, not of history. He is entitled to write sneeringly about Irish people in English journals, but he is not an appropriate source for a biographical article. The "nudge-nudge" nature of this edit (and the above post) show that it is only an attempt to introduce POV through the back door. Scolaire (talk) 08:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Toibin is one of Ireland's foremost contemporary writers, and when you say he is entitled to write "sneeringly about Irish people in English journals" you reveal a certain POV of your own. But Toibin is hardly alone in addressing Pearse's interest in boys. It's a central theme of works such as "Boy Republic: Patrick Pearse and the Weapon of Education" by Dr Brendan Walsh, "Pearse's Patriots: St Enda's and the Cult of Boyhood" by Elaine Sisson, and is extensively discussed in the Augustejn biography and by Ruth Dudley Edwards in her 1977 biography and in "The Seven", out this year. And then there is Pearse's own writing about boys, celebrating their innocence, mischieviousness and physical beauty, as well as expressing his desires to spend time with and mould them. Miles Creagh (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Note I have not said that there should be no reference to speculation about Pearse's sexuality. What I am saying is that any such reference a) should be in the appropriate place e.g. Reputation, not where you put it; b) should be in the form of factual statements, not innuendo; and c) should not cite Tóibín, a novelist who has never done an academic study of Pearse or anything connected with him. I said something similar in the 'Question of sexuality' section over five years ago, but what happened instead was that all content regarding his sexuality was removed and never replaced. And I sincerely hope that you are not thinking of adding commentary on Pearse's writing about boys. That would be synthesis, a big no-no. No doubt you are now going to protest that you didn't say anything about sexuality. That is why I have talked about innuendo. Scolaire (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, we disagree on Toibin, who is a prominent cultural critic and public intellectual, probably one of the most prominent in contemporary Ireland, as well as a writer and academician. And your initial objection to his essay as a source - simply that he was writing for an English journal - I think rather tipped your hand here. What does it matter in which country or jurisdiction a publication is based, for our purposes? I did read the "Question of Sexuality" discussion above, which seems to deal rather vaguely with whether Pearse was plain vanilla gay, with allusion made to the old canard of his unrequited love for Eveleen Nicholls. It doesn't address the third possibility that Pearse was a fixated homosexual paedophile, albeit perhaps an unconscious or repressed one. This seems to be the conclusion of both Ruth Dudley Edwards and Elaine Sisson, while Joost Augusteyn discusses the possibility at some length. "...it is not just an idealisation of young boys that drove Patrick. His special fondness for boys was observed by his pupils. Patrick certainly seemed to have a tendency to favour good looking boys. Following a tour of Donegal in support of the League he wrote to his fellow traveller Francis Joseph Bigger with a request for a photo of one of the boys he had met on the way...There is a story stemming from 1902 in which he undressed and shared a bed with a boy while in Connemara...From the testimony of other former pupils it becomes clear that Patrick did express his penchant for boys openly to them: 'Pearse used to kiss the young boys. He tried to kiss me but I would not have it.' Some of the Fianna boys referred to Pearse as 'Kiss Me Hardy' after a character in the introduction of John Bull's Other Island. Seamus O'Sullivan claimed this was widely known: 'Pearse was under a cloud because it was known that he used to kiss boys in his school, putting it more bluntly: Pearse made love to his boy pupils'". I do agree with you, however, that the "Reputation" section is probably the best place for some of this material. Miles Creagh (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx-SiTR66gA Pajokie (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)pajokie

Toibin describes students saying this and that but does not reference where he sourced these passages, leading one to wonder if it was all sourced from Toibin's imagination.

109.125.17.175 (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It's actually Joost Augesteijn's academic biography that says it, which is a longstanding source for the article, and a Wikipedia:RS.Miles Creagh (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Section for pedophilia and aspergers accusations.

Should we have a section for it? See this if you dont know what I am talking about. Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

See the section above (Pearse and boys). A brief, informative and neutral sentence was added to the Reputation section with this edit. No more is needed. If you want to add a similarly brief sentence on the Fitzgerald/Walker theory it might be no harm, though bear in mind that it is much less mainstream than the sexuality question. Scolaire (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't see any logic in waiting two weeks and then creating a new section to exactly duplicate the paragraph that was already in the Reputation section (the paragraph I linked to above). Adding a sentence to say that Sean Farrell Moran "also voiced support for the theory" is doubly redundant since Farrell Moran is the first author cited in the duplicated paragraph. Since there is no proof that Pearse was a paedophile, and his notability does not reside in his sexuality, having a separate section titled "Claims of Pedophilia" is POV. What is in the Reputation section is sufficient, and due weight. Scolaire (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, there has been enough academic debate on Pearse's sexuality for it to warrant its own section.Apollo The Logician (talk)#

How many chapters in Ruth Dudley Edwards's biography are devoted to Pearse's sexuality? In Sean Farrell Moran's? In Joost Augusteyn's? In Foy and Barton's Easter Rising book? In Charles Townshend's? in Fearghal McGarry's? What major conferences have focused on his sexuality? Where and when were all these "academic debates" that I seem to have missed? There has been enough speculation on Pearse's sexuality in the standard reference works to merit a couple of sentences in the Reputation section of this article, and that is what it has. Scolaire (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)