Talk:Easter Rising/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

ISBN's for bibliography

I haven't got the ISBNs of the books listed here. (The copies I have are all first editions without modern ISBNs.) I will add in the ISBNs as I get them. If anyone else has them, feel free to add them in. JTD 02:19 Dec 20, 2002 (UTC)

I added the ISBN for the Lyons book, but I don't have the other two. I could add several other books on the topic if that would be helpful. On another note, does anyone think that an entry on the Easter Rising without a single mention of the Irish Republican Brotherhood is somewhat remiss? It was that organization (more under the leadership of Tom Clarke and Sean MacDiarmida than anyone else) that really planned the rising. -R. fiend

Cleanup tag

I have put the cleanup flag on this article because I think it reflects the traditional British view of the rising e.g. if only they had not executed the leaders things might have worked out very differently. It would help if it took account of Fay and Burton's work e.g. that hostility to the rising among the Dublin population has been exagerrated, or that while the rising presented major military problems it was not an obvious piece of lunacy or intended as a "blood sacrifice", the British troops actually did quite well to defeat the rising in only a week. PatGallacher 00:07, 2005 August 15 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. No one can say what might have happened if the Brits hadn't executed the leaders, but the article doesn't really dwell on that. Robert Kee, for instance, postulates that the support for Sinn Fein in 1918 was less about the population being appalled at the executions of the leaders so much as their reslove against conscription and the division of Ireland. While the antipathy for the general population for the rising and its leaders wasn't universal, it was pretty widespread, which is hardly surprising given the number of Irishmen serving in the British army at the time, as well as the fact that the rising resulted mostly in the death of Irishmen, not British soldiers. Likewise there was still substantial support for and belief in Home Rule. Certainly Pearse, at least, did view the rising as a blood sacrifice, and while other leaders may have hoped or victory, once it began they new quite well it was not feasible from a military standpoint; Connolly himself said they didn't stand a chance. Roughly a thousand under-equipped, ill-trained men never did stand a chance at victory. Had they got the entirety of the Irish Volunteers to turn out they might have played havoc with British rule in Ireland foir a time, but hey knew that wasn't going to happen, particularly after MacNeill's countermand. I'm going to remove the cleanup tag, though you should feel free to edit the article as you see fit. -R. fiend 01:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Rm Boer paragraph?

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

US reaction to the Rising

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

The only surviving leader(Eamonn de Valera) of the revolution went on to organise the war of independence? Is this really acurate? FE

Surely its also inaccutate to call the rising the earliest socialist rising in europe - even if it was - and i don't think so -wouldn't the Commune have more of a right to that claim?

Added image of military forces

Its a self made image, and its not to any particular scale- its only to give a military view of what took place. Picture paints a thousand words etc. Please redo it/correct if you think necessary. Thanks. Fluffy999 22:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice pic, Fluffy! Just a couple or three thoughts:

Should it maybe be titled 'Placements of Rebel forces and British troops...'?

Should the Shelbourne be filled in in black (British Army point)?

Should Trinity College be named?

Scolaire 19:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) Yes its fine to rename it whatever is most appropriate for the timeperiod. I've only seen 2 maps of the engagements so you could be right on the other points too. Thanks Fluffy999 20:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Disputed comment

It stands as the last military clash on British soil. What is 'military clash' defined as? What about the War of Independence and the Troubles, to name the first two examples that come to mind? --Kwekubo 18:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

...and what is "British soil" anyway? It could just as easily refer to the Fanklands/Malvinas in the 1980's. I've deleted that sentence.

Scolaire 22:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say calling Ireland "British Soil" is just trying to be inflammatory and start an argument.Easter rising

Nothern Ireland as far as i am concerend is British soil and that the Easter Rising was a two-bit rebillion, The troubles were all the fault of IRA/Republicans who killed thousands of innocent people for what, an agreement which has made a sucker out of everyone. (Gareth McClelland) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.80.61 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for that, Gareth. Scholarly debate is always welcome. Scolaire 18:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, what a scholarly opinion that was. Run along, lad, you're late for your UVF meeting. ---Charles 18:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course the less diplomatic option is that Wikipedia is not a blog (and thus to erase such rants). Djegan 18:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I was informed by an administrator that doing so would be a violation of policy---but, trust me, I am tempted to do so anyway. ---Charles 18:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

James Connolly & The Citizen Army

In his book "The Life and Times of James Connolly" historian C Desmond Greaves disputes, with evidence, two assertions in your articles.

Firstly, the idea that if the Citizen Army had have started a seperate rising it would have been a "fiasco". This is not a historical fact. A few years earlier James Connolly had helped organise a successful general strike in Dublin and elsewhere (the "Lock-out") against the most powerful Empire in the world at that time. Greaves describes the Citizen Army as an armed off-shoot of that Labour movement. We can never know if Connolly could have mobilized a mass labour movement behind his own Citizen Army rising. But if he could, who's to say it would not have been successful? Connolly's aim was different to the IRB and the Nationalists, a socialist revoloution.

Secondly, Greaves claims that Roger Casement did not arrive in Ireland to stop the rising, but to warn that a rising should not be attempted if it depended SOLELY on arms arriving from Germany. Certainly Connolly did not believe the rising depended only on that armed shipment.

Opening paragraph

"The Easter Rising (Irish: Éirí Amach na Cásca) was a rebellion staged in Ireland against British rule on Easter Monday, April 24, 1916. Despite its military failure, it can be judged as being a significant stepping-stone in the eventual creation of the Irish Republic. The rising was the most significant since the rebellion of 1798. It was an attempt by militant republicans to violently force independence from the United Kingdom. The Irish Republican revolutionary attempt occurred from April 24 to April 30, 1916, in which the Irish Republican Brotherhood ..."

There is a good deal of repitition in this short paragraph:

The date, April 24th, appears twice

That it was against British rule is stated twice

That it was staged by republicans is stated three times

There is also an error of fact: The IRB was involved in the planning of the Rising, but did not "attempt" it, "joined by a part of the Irish Volunteers and the smaller Irish Citizen Army."

My edit is an attempt to make the opening paragraph more readable. It is not an attempt to introduce any POV. Feel free to re-word it, but please do not simply revert, as that achieves nothing.

Scolaire 16:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that is greatly improved. It flows better with the rewording and the removal of the repetitious dates and phrases. ---Charles 17:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Aw, shucks! Thanks!  :-D Scolaire 23:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The Proclamation and the infobox

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

Opening paragraph (continued)

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

Infobox

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

But members of the IRB fought in the rising even if not under the IRB banner. Dermo69

So did members of the Catholic Church and members of the Trade Union Congress. I can't be bothered with an edit war, but the IRB does not belong in there under combatants. Scolaire 12:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The IRB was the organisation behind the easter rising.It infiltrated the Irish volunteers and included important figures such as thomas clarke.Its save to say the IRB was a part of the rising.You're probably right about the DMP though.I'll check that one out Dermo69

YOU people are both mistaken, have u even read the proclaimation the most important document of the rising which clearly states "having organised and trained her manhood through her secret revolutionary organisation THE IRISH REPUBLICAN BROTHERHOOD" I think the proclaimation clearly says that the IRB were involved as combatants.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.134.150.65 (talk • contribs)

I am well aware of the role of the IRB in the Rising, and the acknowlegement of them in the Proclamation. What I'm saying is that the IRB planned the Rising, and a planner is not a combatant. The combatants were the soldiers (i.e. Volunteers and Citizen Army) who fought on behalf of the IRB, if you like. Thus, George W. Bush is not a combatant in the Iraq War, neither is the American Government, or American oil interests — only the American military (and its allies) are combatants. This is not to diminish the role of the IRB in the Rising, just to define it precisely.
Scolaire 18:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Didn't the volunteers shoot officers of the DMP outside City Hall? I tell you if I was shot, I'd be involved! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.1.89.80 (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Irish Republicanism infobox

As I've said elsewhere, the infobox is beautifully laid out, and contains a mass of information. Unfortunately, when there are other graphics in the article it pushes the text down and makes the article less readable. What I've done here, as with Easter Proclamation, is to try to leave in everything that is directly relevant to this article, and still preserve the broader view that it was obviously meant to convey. I hope i have succeeded reasonably well.
Scolaire 17:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Apologies. I was trying to fix the page when my crappy internet link went down. Where an infobox affects the location of images, the standard solution applied all over WP is simple: change the image placement from right to left (or vice versa if the box is on the left). Because of the nature of the template a reader should be able to link into a lot more than just the piece you left here. I think it is important that people can use the whole template to get access to all the information. The box is designed as a form of crossroads from which a reader can go to everything from political topics to biographies to artistic aspects to links to other strands in Irish history, whether Unionism, Monarchism, etc. So readers should be able in one straight link, for example, to go from here to songs about the Rising (we need some articles about them), or to Sinn Féin, or by jumping to the forthcoming Nationalist template to the IIP, etc etc.

BTW one minor point: WP has a policy of using contemporaneous names. So one doesn't write St. Petersburg when discussing a time period when the city was called Leningrad, or vice versa. Similarly, given that in 1916 the name used was Kingstown, not Dun Laoghaire, normally we'd use a pipe to Kingstown and then have in brackets "later called Dun Laoghaire". That is because all the contemporary documents would use that name and so if someone reading the article here then read contemporary documents and weren't au fait with the name change they might be confused by why the names in our article didn't feature in the article. Similarly references before its name change speak of Rhodesia not Zimbabwe, Constantinople not Istanbul, Sackville Street and Rutland Square not O'Connell Street and Parnell Square. And if tomorrow it was decided to rename Parnell Square to say de Valera Square, references up to pre-tomorrow's date would use the contemporaneous name.

I hope that helps. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 22:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)}

From the template talk page, I gather: "It is a draft. Drafts put everything in and then edit them." I am therefore reverting to my own shortened version until the draft is ready to be put in this article.
Scolaire 23:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The infobox is now of suitable size (and I presume it's not going to grow again), so I am happy to replace it.
Scolaire 17:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction about partition?

The Background sections says the Home Rule Act 1914 introduced partition, but the article on it says that the 1914 Act was for one Home Rule Parliament for the whole island. And that partition didn't become an issue until later - this was my understanding. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 18:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The Home Rule Bill 1912 was for the whole island of Ireland. By the time it was enacted, in 1914, it excluded the six counties of the north-east. This is discussed in the The shaping of Partition section of the Home rule Act 1914 article. Scolaire 20:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The intro to the Home Rule Act 1914 is a bit vague about it. I'll leave a note on its talk page. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 20:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

militant?

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

"Militant" simply means "taking up arms". In my mind, at least, it has no negative connotations. "Citizen soldier", on the other hand, is just an odd phrase that is out of synch with the rest of the article. As someone who is proud of my country's militant past, I would prefer to see it left the way it was. Scolaire 22:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Rebellion outside Dublin

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Link to Sinn Féin

The third paragraph of this article refers to 73 republicans (then represented by the Sinn Féin party) being returned in the 1918 general election.

"Sinn Féin", however, links to the article about the current Sinn Féin - not to the SF that existed in 1918. Accordingly, I changed the link so that it directed to History of Sinn Féin, which is the more relevant article, given that it deals in depth with SF in 1918. Unfortunately, the change has been reverted.

To link to the Sinn Féin article is a breach of NPOV as it gives readers the impression that the current party bearing the SF name is the one and the same as the party elected in 1918, without any regard to the numerous splits and offshoots that have occurred since (i.e. it gives credence to the particular POV that the current SF (and not any other SF or SF-offshoot) is the one true and unambiguous heir to the party of 1918). This issue has caused great dispute on the SF article, so there should be no excuse for my edit being reverted by someone who was aware of the controversy. The SF article says that the current party was formed in 1970.

Any other views? Mooretwin (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Give it up, Mooretwin. The SF article does not say that the current party was formed in 1970, it says that it originated in the SF organisation of 1905 and took its current form in 1970. The "great dispute" was carried on by you alone, against the rest of Wikipedia, for nigh-on two years. It took the intervention of a neutral admin to establish definitively that your "one true and unambiguous" POV was against consensus. Your attempts to continue your POV war on History of Sinn Féin also failed for lack of consensus. You are now attempting the same thing again by editing over a range of articles, including deliberately provocative edit summaries referring to "PSF". You are asking for another block. Scolaire (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not make untrue statements. The dispute was not carried out by me alone: that is a lie. Please retract it. Please also desist from making threats and stick to discussing the content of the article. Other than to deny that the current article states that the party was formed in 1970 (look at the infobox), have you anything else to say in response to my contribution above? The SF article is deliberately ambiguous, the claim that the current SF is the singular inheritor of the 1905 SF is controversial (even you don't agree with that), so the most neutral thing to do here is link to the History article, and not to the article about the current party. Mooretwin (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Reaction of Dublin Public

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Rewrite

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Section needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'90th Anniversary of the 1916 Rising'

It is nearly five years since the 90th anniversary celebrations. Were they really that memorable? Does such a detailed description add anything to an article on the Rising itself? I propose that we add a single, very brief sentence to the end of the Legacy section ("The 90th anniversary was celebrated with military parade in Dublin on Easter Sunday, 2006, with the President of Ireland, the Taoiseach and the Lord Mayor of Dublin in attendance"), and delete this entire section. Scolaire (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but the history of the commemoration of the Rising, particularly in the 20s and 30s and on the 50th anniversary in 1966 is significant in terms of building the nationalist identity of the southern state, and in the north mobilising people of republican views against that state. Perhaps we could have a more wide-ranging para about that? The 2006 element would be a small addendum. Hold on, I see we actually have this already! Jdorney (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! And 1966, which has had at least one book written about it, gets a cursory mention, while 2006 gets equal coverage in Legacy plus a section of its own. Scolaire (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree, maybe a bit more on 1966 and get rid of the 2006 stuff bar a mention. Jdorney (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Tagged for (lack of) accuracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More re-writes are needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

St Patrick's Day 1916

There is no mention of the operations of the Volunteers on St Patrick's day 1916 in the article. The St Patrick's day demonstration in the centre of Dublin was the first time the Volunteers had taken aggressive action in daylight. It was just under a month before the Rising. There was also leaflets distributed on St Patrick's day containing "Twenty plain facts for Irishmen". I believe the St Patrick's day demonstration is important to the Build-up to Easter Week and infomation should be added about it. Does anyone have the full list of "Twenty plain facts for Irishmen"? --MFIreland (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Twenty plain facts for Irishmen first appeared in the Nov. 1914 edition of The Irish Review, which edition was apparently edited by Joe Plunkett. This source holds that two slightly different versions were produced. RashersTierney (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Executions?

If the following paragraph represents dates of executions, it should so say so. Right now it's just sitting there unexplained:

03 May: Patrick Pearse, Thomas MacDonagh and Thomas J. Clarke
   04 May: Joseph Plunkett, William Pearse, Edward Daly and Micheal O'Hanrahan
   05 May: John MacBride
   08 May: Eamonn Ceannt, Micheal Mallin, J.J. Heuston and Cornelius Colbert
   12 May: James Connolly and Sean MacDiarmada

KD Tries Again (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Vandalization of links to Rebel Heart

The links to the BBC episodes of Rebel Heart and the theme music composed by Sharon Corr were vandalized because an editor thought they were not relevant. Nothing could be further from the truth! Episode one is about the Easter Rising. Surely we don't exclude references in the arts and culture.TonyMath (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Discuss what?

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

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

Varlaam got a block record as long as your arm and a final warning for an indef. Some of that is for tirades like this which make no argument but are just rants. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems like he's just saying "Easter Rising" is a bit trite (I guess I agree) and that we should at least include the alternative "Easter Rebellion" in the introduction. He added it (with sources) but was reverted out of hand and ordered to discuss. Maybe he's been blocked before and warned for other stuff, but underneath it all he does have a point, no? Neutrality and all that? Keep your fork, there's pie (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Show some evidence of common use for "Rebellion", its rare as far as I see from most history books. The odd reference is not enough. Before you use perforative phrases like "ordered" and "out of hand" try reading up on WP:BRD ----Snowded ^TALK 20:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

BRD is just an essay. I don't have to "read up" on it. But fair enough - you were nice enough when you reverted him. I was just trying to see things from his side. As for common use, I don't think it's "common" to talk about the Easter Rising at all. I don't know much about it. But what kind of sources would be acceptable? How many? Keep your fork, there's pie (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

1916 Rising? 1916 Rebellion? Sinn Fein Rebellion? Sinn Fein Rising? Sinn Fein Uprising? Easter Uprising? I'm sure there's a couple more too, so how many names should we have in the first sentence? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 20:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

BRD may be an essay but its generally enforced if an issue goes to ANI. Its always advisable on anything related to The Troubles. Otherwise "Fork" you really shouldn't say that you don't much about a subject just after you have expressed an opinion. I suggest you do a little research before making statements like that. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not afraid to admit I don't know much about the subject. I don't have to know much about the subject, because I'm not really talking about the subject. I'm talking about the angry guy who started this thread. I can read, so I can see that he cited a source, and I can see that he might have something resembling a point... why do I have to know all the ins and outs of Irish politics to have an opinion? Keep your fork, there's pie (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

And, for the record, I don't really have an opinion. I said "I guess" I agree about the title seeming trite, but other than that, I don't really have anything to add except to say that maybe Varlaam has a point. I could be wrong even about that, though. Again, not afraid to admit it. Keep your fork, there's pie (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Getting back to the point

I've no personal objection to the inclusion of "Easter Rebellion" as an alternate name. However the problem is that as I said at 20:35 yesterday there are quite a few alternate names for the rising, so if you're going to include one then you have to include them all. In my opinion including all those alternate names in the lead would be ridiculous, we'd be about four lines down on the page before we'd finished. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 16:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

There appear to be a fair number of sources supporting "Easter Rebellion" as an alternate name, such as http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/easter-rebellion-begins, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/176916/Easter-Rising, http://www.britishpathe.com/video/war-in-ireland-easter-rebellion, and http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/denilp20&div=8&id=&page=. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that it's an alternate name. My point is there's at least half a dozen other alternate names all of which can be reliably sourced, so the opening sentence is going to look rather ridiculous if we include them all don't you agree? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 18:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Um, yeah. You mean I was supposed to read the discussion? :-) I think we can omit "1916 uprising/rebellion", because it's too generic. "Sinn Fein uprising" seems to appear mostly with a lowercase "u". "Sinn Fein Rebellion", otoh, might have a claim because http://www.sinnfein.org/documents/intro.html states that the press at the time referred to it that way, accurately or not. "Easter Rebellion" does have an order of magnitude fewer hits than "Easter Rising", granted. Maybe we should go with "Easter Rising, also known as the Sinn Fein Rebellion"?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with Sinn Fein Rising/Rebellion is that both are deprecated by sources, and almost always used with the qualifier that it was an erroneous name and/or used by the British. It's briefly touched on in the article here, it could probably do with a bit of expansion to include the names. But I'm not sure if it should go in the lead without some degree of qualification? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 19:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

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

After a bit of research (should have done that first really!) it was also the Irish public (probably influenced by the fact the press were saying it, although from memory various citizens were saying it was the "Sinn Feiners" even during the rising itself), which makes things more difficult. It's further complicated by the fact I was thinking of "erroneously" or similar as a qualifier, so we'd really be looking at a double qualification which could get a bit convoluted. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 19:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Germany

Rather than see the current edit-war pepetuated, I think it should be stated here that Germany was not a combatant in the Rising. Germany sent one shipload of arms that never reached land. It did not engage in any fighting in Ireland. A combatant is somebody who fights. Scolaire (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

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

It is certainly mentioned in the article already. I see no place for it in the infobox, however. -R. fiend (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Soft protection?

The article is getting a sizeable number of updates from a 92.7.*.*-based user and these are being reverted quite quickly. I suggest the user calms his/her jets for the time being and proposes changes here on the talk page rather than making them directly to the article.

If that doesn't happen, is there support to soft protect the article? I suggest a period of two weeks until after the anniversary of the Rising.

--RA (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

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

No! You protect against vandalism, not against content disputes. You should both know better. 86.31.189.83 (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism or edit-warring. Continuing to revert to your own version against consensus and while discussion is still ongoing is edit-warring. Here it is again, just a couple of hours ago. Scolaire (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Problem user? Then deal with the user. Policy doesn't permit preemtive semi protection, nor protecting to exclude IPs. There's no argument, a block here is not permitted, according to policy anyway. Further; RA - an interested party - should not use his admin rights here. You want semi protection, then request it at whatever notice board handles it, but if it's pure edit warring, and that's what it looks like to me, then full protection is the order of the day. 86.31.189.83 (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion hidden. Please remain civil.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You're awfully dogmatic for an anon! If you're so clued in on procedures and anxious to do things properly why don't you get yourself an account? Or do I mean, why don't you log on before posting? And RA never said he was going to protect it himself. He makes a point of not acting as admin on any article that he has any involvement in. Scolaire (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC) You are just so typical of your avearge Wiki enthusiast. If there's a choice between addressing the issue at hand or questioning the probity of a new or anonymous contributor to the debate, you leap at the latter. 86.31.189.83 (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC) As opposed to an above average Wiki enthusiast who lectures us on Wiki policy without telling us where he got his specialist knowledge from, or even why he is interested in the case in the first place? Scolaire (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Public surge in support ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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