Jump to content

Talk:Easter Rising/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

German Empire as a combatant

Moved from my talk page:

Although it may seem unlikely, and is a little known fact, thee was significant German naval activity in the run up to the rising. Lowestoft and were bombarded in England, the SS Libau attempted to drop weapons, and U-19 landed Roger Casement and a number of others in Kerry after their mission to Berlin.
The action in the North Sea included elements of the German High Seas Fleet and the British Grand Fleet. It was fought to coincide with the Rising. Source: 'Easter Rising 1916 - Birth of the Irish Republic.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leanseahy (talk • contribs) 07:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I presume you're referring to this book. You'll see that it has a chapter on the opposing commanders and another on the opposing armies, and neither of them has any Germans in it. I can't see the reference to the bombardment of Lowestoft and [where?], but I think you'll find that Germany and Britain were involved in a less-well-known conflict at the time. Scolaire (talk) 07:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Apologies for the poor composition of the previous post, I was in a hurry this morning.
The raid on Lowestoft and Yarmouth was specifically planned in conjuction with the Easter Rising and so it should be added to this article.
Obviously it is common knowledge that the German Navy stopped off Roger Casement and co and delivered weapons so It's amazing to me that Germany hasn't already been listed as at the very least a supporting nation. The naval action in the North Sea should be justification for inclusion as a full belligerent.
Just because things aren't well known surely doeant mean they should be removed, does it?
Perhaps you could refrain from making sarcastic remarks in future too.
Regards Leanseahy. Leanseahy (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
The Bombardment of Yarmouth and Lowestoft article says that "the raid was timed to coincide with the expected Easter Rebellion by Irish Nationalists, who had requested German assistance." War and Security says that "[Reinhard] Scheer’s memoirs makes no mention of events in Ireland when discussing this operation, but the British Official History argues that they influenced at least its timing. Scheer says that the objective was to force British ships out of port by naval bombardment of Lowestoft and Yarmouth and airship raids on Harwich, Ipswich, Lincoln and Norwich." There is a world of difference between an act of war being timed to coincide with a rebellion, and actually being a part of that rebellion. It had no demonstrable effect on the Rising itself, so I can't see any reason to deal with it in this article. The Aud and Casement's submarine are adequately covered in the article. They don't merit the inclusion of Germany in the infobox. Apologies for the sarcasm; Wikipedia will do that to you. Scolaire (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough I guess, although I was hoping to be able to do something similar to how the Battle of Tory Island is presented on Wikipedia. This is listed as a part of both the French Revolutionary Wars and the 1798 Rebellion. Still, you are of course correct in saying Lowestoft and Yarmouth was more to do with WWI that the Easter Rising. Would it not make sense to add the German Empire as a support though? Leanseahy (talk) 11:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Never seen any plausible evidence of proper German involvement. Then again in hindsight do republicans really want to be associated with the big bad Reich in both World Wars ;-) Mabuska (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Ignoring the previous unhelpful comment ;-) The infobox was never meant to be "everything you need to know about the subject". That's what the article is for. The infobox is a ready reference, containing the most salient details. What these are must necessarily be decided by consensus. This infobox has been the subject of discussion on several occasions. The most thorough discussion was at Talk:Easter Rising/Archive 4#Belligerents, which came up with the current consensus. I'm sure there must have been discussion of Germany as well at some point, but there has never been a consensus to add them to the infobox. Scolaire (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

British response

NOTE: Disruption by sock of User:HarveyCarter. Scolaire (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It was the British response, including the execution of the leaders, that turned public opinion against the UK. The rising itself was a complete failure. (2A00:23C4:6388:7300:2827:13C0:2A9B:BFC3 (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC))

No, it was not. The Rising may have been a tactically failure, strategically it was a success. It woke up the people, especially outside Dublin. Only in Dublin the executions had some sort of effect, but in general it were the excessive arrests and internments that robbed the English from their tactical victory and turned it into a pyrrhic victory. The Banner talk 11:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The rising was a complete failure and it was crushed within six days. You admitted yourself that the British response ("excessive arrests and internments") turned public opinion against the UK. The rising itself never had any chance of success because the weapons failed to arrive. (2A00:23C4:6388:7300:2827:13C0:2A9B:BFC3 (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC))
Sorry Banner, you've been sucked into a conversation with HarveyCarter again. Scolaire (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Lol I'm not HarveyCarter, check my IP address. If the British had just imprisoned the leaders for a short while there wouldn't have been a large increase in support for Sinn Fein in December 1918. (2A00:23C4:6388:7300:2827:13C0:2A9B:BFC3 (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC))
<ugly word> The Banner talk 13:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I have had to revert the addition of content today because it was taken verbatim from the Richmond Barracks site and the Irish Times. --Scolaire (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Easter Rising. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Apology?

NOTE: Disruption by sock of User:HarveyCarter. The Banner (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)# Has the British government ever apologised for the Easter Rising? (PaddyCarstairs (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC))

If you mean the reaction to it, then no. Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Help needed

Who can I speak with regarding an edition of the Easter Rising page?

"Irish atrocities" says the following:
"Too many for wikipedia's servers to record. Most obviously the fact this ridiculous terrorist act was undertaken against a country fighting for freedom in a world war while the offending fenians killed british civilians over a war they lost over 200 years prior."

What the hell is that? It must be a joke or something.

177.230.93.9 (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Executed icon

I believe this article is incomplete without the  Executed icon and can see no reason why it is not included next to each of the leaders' names. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The use of any icon is purely optional. This was discussed here and here and the consensus both times was that users were not in favour of its use. Scolaire (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
That icon is extremely ugly and sensational. The ugliness is a far more negative aspect than then the info that the signatories were executed. That is mentioned elsewhere in the article anyway. The Banner talk 19:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the icon is both ugly and unnecessary. Denisarona (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Easter Rising. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Genocide

Disruption by sock of banned User:HarveyCarter. --Scolaire (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There needs to be discussion about whether the British actions during and after the uprising could be considered genocidal. (2A00:23C4:638D:D500:1B0:E245:524F:4D29 (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC))

Find a citation from a reliable source that uses that language and there might be a case to discuss it. Otherwise please don't waste other editors time ----Snowded TALK 12:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

"Zombie"

"Zombie" is a song about the Northern Ireland Troubles, written in response to the Warrington bombing. It is mentioned, appropriately, in the Warrington bombing article and The Troubles in popular culture. But the fact that it has the line "It's the same old theme since nineteen-sixteen" is not sufficient to put it in the Popular Culture section of this article. That section of this article is for notable songs, books, films etc. that deal in depth with the subject of the article, not for songs that "mention" it without actually mentioning it. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We've also had people adding a popular Irish punkabilly rock band based out of Rochester, NY and a Finn Bálor wrestling move. These things do not improve the article. Scolaire (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Obviously whoever put it in thought so and to a degree I agree, though with a reword to highlight that the line is referencing the Rising and using it in a negative manner (is negative stuff allowed on this article out of curiousity?) to denounce the mindset of republicans during the Troubles and indeed afterwards who all use the Rising as justification for their actions. In that regard the Rising is a central tenant of the song not just a mention. Mabuska (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Although I corrected the entry, I tend to agree that its inclusion is not relevant to the article. Denisarona (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
The lyrics just mention 1916. It is not about 1916 or the Easter Rising. So to my opinion inclusion is irrelevant. The Banner talk 11:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
What do you think the song is refering to then?Apollo The Logician (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
It is well known what it means with even Dolores stating it in interviews. To say otherwise is simply trying to ignore the truth. The article of the song also makes reference to it. As stated, it is a central tenant and part of the topic of the song. Unless of course you're stating that 1916 doesn't stand as the main inspiration for modern republicanism? If not then what was all that pomp about the 100th anniversary of it last year? Mabuska (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
It is not a central tenant [sic] of the song. It is a line from the song. Yes of course, it means that "the Irish fight for independence that seems to last forever" has been going on since [the Rising of] 1916, but it's still just a line – a "mention" of the Rising without actually mentioning it. It doesn't deal with the Rising in any detail, and so it doesn't belong in the Rising article. Scolaire (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with it being in the article.Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I see now that the Zombie reference has appeared and disappeared on this page before. I added the reference because that reference was the way I became aware of the Easter Rising in the first place, and given the song's popularity (and general ignorance about history) I would not be surprised were such a common occurrence. 45.56.62.133 (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but that's like me saying that I became aware of Tchaikovsky through hearing the very popular Roll Over Beethoven, so Chuck Berry's song ought to get a mention in the Tchaikovsky article. I understand your reason for doing it, but the logic is faulty. Scolaire (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Concur with Scolaire a single reference in the song does not warrant mentioning in this article. Finnegas (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
The song uses the Easter rising as the central reason for the actions the song is hitting out at Mabuska (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Just as "Roll Over Beethoven" uses Tchaikovsky to represent the music the song is hitting out at. And please stop using that word "central". There's nothing central about it; it's a passing mention. Scolaire (talk) 10:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Easter Rising. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Irish Republic vs. British Empire

I think it is important to state in the infobox that this was a conflict between the Irish Republic and the British Empire. The participants were fighting with a clear goal and a clear banner in mind; the Irish Republic. Just calling them "rebel forces" makes it look like a directionless or random skirmish. The whole point was they had Proclaimed an Irish Republic and taken up arms to defend it.

On the question of the British Empire as a combatant, Britain at the time was an Empire and the politically correct modern parlance about "the United Kingdom" would not have been widespread then. The Irish Republican forces named their enemy as the British Empire and the British Imperialists wouldn't have, at the time, blushed about the fact that they were an Empire, either. To give a parallel, on the Jewish–Roman wars article, we mention the Roman Empire as a participant.... doesn't mean to say every single Roman legion was in Palestine. Claíomh Solais (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. Republicans were seeking independence from the United Kingdom. If you wish to persue this argument I'd suggest providing academic, verifiable, and reliable sourcing that states that it was the BE not the UK that was involved against the rebels. Also using IR gives undue weight and acceptance to a state that was not universally recognised or even in real existence with proper powers. Mabuska (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

When this article was written in the 2000s (and especially the rewrite that I was part of in 2007–08) it was based on the standard works on the Rising: Charles Townshend, Foy and Barton, Max Caulfield. Fearghal McGarry's 2010 book was extensively cited later, especially in the major revision that was done mostly by Asarlaí in March–April 2016. The article uses the terminology that those authors use, and they talk in terms of rebels and British forces, not The Irish Republic and The British Empire. I don't disagree that the Rising was in support of an Irish Republic, or that they saw themselves as taking on the British Empire or that the British saw themselves as defending the Empire, but an encyclopaedia is not for reflecting the views of its writers, it is for summarising the way the subject is discussed in the most authoritative sources. And the infobox shouldn't be at odds with the article. The article uses "rebels" or "rebellion" 133 times! And "British forces", "British troops", "British soldiers" or just "the British" is used for the opposing forces. Incidentally, I don't agree with adding this blockquote in the middle of the "Arrests and Executions" section. It has the appearance of being added just to justify the use of "British Empire" and "Irish Republic" in the infobox. The section is for the facts of the arrests and executions, not for stirring speeches. If you're going to start quoting Connolly, then why not also John Maxwell or H.H. Asquith? Scolaire (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

A point of language: Ireland was an integral part of the UK and was well represented in Parliament. The UK also ruled the British Empire, but Ireland before 1922 was not part of the Empire (unlike Canada or India or Australia, which had zero members of Parliament). Rjensen (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Maxwell is already quoted in the arrests and executions section. Including his view that people physically resisting a foreign invasion are guilty of "cold blooded murder." Given that Connolly was one of the main leaders of the Rising, who was both arrested and executed, a quote from his Last Statement to the Field General Courts-Martial a few days beforehand, explaining what the purpose of the Rising was from the Republican side and their justification would seem applicable here. Otherwise it is just British people who are quoted there.
The problem with just saying "British forces", "British troops", etc, as their opponent, is that it removes the governmental aspect. The British Army is entirely subordinate to the British government. We mention Ivor Guest ("Viscount Wimborne" if you want to humour pretentious titles the Normans pass out among themselves) in the infobox, but his role was entirely political. He was not a serving member of the British Army or the RIC at the time, but worked for the British state/government/empire in a political capacity, when Asquith sent him over from London to govern Ireland for Britain as the "Lord Lieutenant of Ireland".
I think this is key, the Irish republicans were not like anarchists or brigands, just carrying out directionless violent acts. So the political aspect of 1916 needs to be further highlighted as a matter of neutrality. The accumulated militant groups regarded themselves as the armed forces of a state in formation; the Irish Republic. Even if that state wasn't recognised internationally at the time in 1916, it subsequently has been, admittedly in a bastardised form, even by the British who they were fighting against (Anglo-Irish Treaty). Claíomh Solais (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
To put it another way: we have the Proclamation of the Republic, but we don't have a formal declaration of war by the provisional government of the Irish Republic on the British Empire, nor a declaration of war by the government of George V on the Irish Republic. To the Irish, it was an uprising; to the British, it was a rebellion. Nobody then or since characterised it as a war between two states, let alone between a state and an empire. Having the infobox show the belligerents as the Republic and the Empire would be misleading.
I first learned about the Rising in school in the 1960s, and in the 50–odd years since I have never seen anybody express the view that the rebels were "like anarchists or brigands" (excepting the British tabloids and the likes of Kevin Myers, of course). The standard books on the Rising certainly don't, so that's a straw man. You're trying to correct a misconception that doesn't exist. What's more, you're trying to do it through the infobox, which is the wrong way to change the balance of articles even if they need changed.
As regards "Maxwell is already quoted", he doesn't have a 100-word blockquote. The purpose of the Rising from the Republican side, and their justification of it, has been well presented already in the article. There might be a point in a short factual sentence saying that all of the leaders made statements justifying their actions (though I don't think there is), but the Connolly blockquote is undue emphasis, and flag-waving to boot. Scolaire (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
What I learned at my Dutch secondary school was that of a rising by Irish rebels against the British Army. No British Empire, no Irish Republic. The Banner talk 23:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Also note that despite suggesting they provide reliable and verifiable academic evidence for their view, none was provided in their response. I also think it is stretching feasibility to suggest that the Anglo-Irish Treaty gave a bastardised form of acceptance to the self-declared IR. Indeed its Wiki article opening paragraph appears misleading and is it not contradictory for a self-declared republic to sign a treaty that made it essentially dominion of an empire headed by a monarchy? A republic headed by a monarch? Seriously? Mabuska (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
"is it not contradictory for a self-declared republic to sign a treaty that made it essentially dominion of an empire headed by a monarchy? A republic headed by a monarch? Seriously?"
Well, yes, which is why the Irish Civil War happened. The Anglo-Irish Treaty was negotiated on the Irish side by the same group who organised the Easter Rising and founded the Irish Republic, however; the leadership of the Irish Republican Brotherhood. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
We covered it all in school. And there was me thinking it was because of a certain six counties not being included... Mabuska (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

1918 General Election

The General Election in December 1918 was held throughout the UK, and resulted in a landslide victory for the coalition government led by David Lloyd George, with the Conservative Party winning most seats. It is misleading to say Sinn Fein won a landslide victory because the election was not only in Ireland. (McStavish (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC))

I quite agree. The claim in this edit summary that "Even seen from a UK-point of view it would be a landslide victory for SF coming from 0 seats to 73 seats. And 3th largest party in parliament" is nonsense - one simply cannot claim that 73 out of 707 seats is a "landslide victory". It's perfectly proper to say that SF won 73 out of 105 Irish seats, but to call it a landslide, or to pretend that the general election was Irish and not UK, is to falsify history. DuncanHill (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
McStavish has been blocked as a sock of the banned user HarveyCarter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

O'Connell Street vs Sackville Street

The article repeatedly refers to "O'Connell Street", which is anachronistic: in 1916, it was still called "Sackville Street", and wasn't renamed to O'Connell Street until 1924.

Before I correct the names in the article (with the modern name in parentheses), I wanted to check if there's some special sensitivity around this. Is it important to people in Dublin never to use the old name, for example? If so, then we could include a note at the top of the article that the street name is ahistorical, and explain why.

  • Update: it seems that "O'Connell Street" was already in popular use in 1916, even though its official name was still "Sackville Street". Given the popular usage, I think a note on first usage (still officially known as "Sackville Street" in 1916) would probably cover things. David (talk)
I'd suggest "Sackville Street (present-day O'Connell Street)" to keep things contemporary. Mabuska (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

British victory

Disruption by sock of banned User:HarveyCarter. --Scolaire (talk) 13:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The rising itself was a military victory for the British. It was the subsequent trials and executions of the leaders, together with the Conscription Crisis, that led to the Tan War. (31.53.205.224 (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC))

Please read WP:BRD and self revert. It isn't a military victory it was overwealming force over what at the time was a limited rebellion - OK it had more significance later but its not appropriate language. -----Snowded TALK 14:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
It was only limited because many of the rebels were ordered not to participate when the weapons from Germany were intercepted. (31.53.205.224 (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC))
Possibly but so what - the current description is appropriate to what happened not what might have happened -----Snowded TALK 16:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The Troubles and the Easter Rising

Please see my question regarding whether the Easter Rising falls within a reasonable interpretation of "The Troubles broadly interpreted" (regarding Discretionary Sanctions purposes) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Great Famine (Ireland), Irish nationalism and discretionary sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

"Impoverishment"

Disruption by sock of banned User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Ireland was far more prosperous and industrialised by 1916 compared to before the Act of Union. Many people were against leaving the UK because of the economic harm it would do to Ireland. After leaving the UK Ireland experience real poverty for many years as it could no longer trade with Britain and the empire. (86.176.67.46 (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC))

References please -----Snowded TALK 13:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter. --Scolaire (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Libau and Aud

I attempted to resolve the issue of pipelinking SS Libau by simply calling it by its name and providing a ref, but this in itself presents a problem, because the ship is thereafter called the Aud, not only in this article but in histories of the Rising generally. A well-meaning editor might easily come along and change all instances of Aud to Libau. I am considering hiding it again, as "the German Navy dispatched [[SS Libau|a ship]] for [[County Kerry]], disguised as the Norwegian ship Aud". Thoughts, SquisherDa, Guliolopez or anybody else? Scolaire (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Good catch! But I think Guliolopez is right to decry Easter-egg solutions. I’ve seen other articles solve nomenclature problems by adding a bracketed note. How about (eg) text as follows:
.. [the German Navy] dispatched a ship disguised as the Norwegian [ Collier (ship) |collier] Aud for County Kerry. (The ship was the [SS Libau], but is usually referenced as the Aud in the literature and generally, and in the rest of this article.)
? (The repetition of “.. ship .. ship .. (The ship ..” would be unattractive, so I’ve thrown in the detail tht the Aud was a collier.)
- SquisherDa (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Personally I thought this version was fine. But, if we think that six linked words is too many, then something like the below would work. Certainly, as I think we are all agreed, linking just the word "Aud" or just the word "disguised" is a problem. And, personally, I would avoid referencing the Libau directly in the text (or indeed linking to the "real" Aud). As the vessel in question here is more commonly known under its "fake name". And mentioning both/all might be confusing. Anyway, the following would get my vote:
Masquerading as the Aud, an existing Norwegian ship, it was loaded with 20,000 rifles...
(I like "masquerading", over "disguised", as it implies an impersonation of something specific, rather than a more generic camouflage).
Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I like Ur version, Guliolopez. If only cos it’s less words (on a point tht’s really only a digression, for most readers). And with Ur reasons as stated. I can’t see tht a six- (or four-)word link is an issue (and if it hints to the reader tht the text is skirting an awkward detail, that’s good, right?!)
(Except - a quibble - I’ve an idea tht there may be a context of maritime law in which /disguised/ is the right word.)
- SquisherDa (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I would still oppose pipelinking the Libau to any word or words other than, maybe, "a ship". I like SquisherDa's solution better, but I would put the added text as a footnote, rather than in parentheses, thus:
On 9 April, the [[Imperial German Navy|German Navy]] dispatched a ship for [[County Kerry]], disguised as the Norwegian ship ''Aud''.<ref group=a>The ship was the ''[[SS Libau]]'', but is usually referred to as the ''Aud'' in the literature.</ref><ref>Caulfield, Max, p. 29</ref> It was loaded with 20,000 rifles...
This would mean creating separate "Notes" and "References" sections at the end, with the new Notes section saying {{reflist|group=a}}. Scolaire (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the photo gallery added by CeltBrowne in this edit is worth discussing. Having said that, I'm not really fond of it for a number of reasons. One, where CeltBrowne thinks it "helps break up the page", I think it unnecessarily and rather jarringly breaks up the page. Two, the Basque article that he took it from has relatively few images in it, while this one already has too many images (do we really need a photo of two soldiers paddling in a small river?). Three, the seven Signatories (seven of the 16 in the gallery) are already in a composite image further up the article. However, I would not be bothered if a consensus emerged to restore the gallery. Scolaire (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, not a fan. It's a bit WP:MEMORIAL. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I removed it. Based on CeltBrowne's own suggestion that it might be removed if it was objectionable. And for the reasons noted already above. That we shouldn't use images or galleries in place of text. That ideally we wouldn't use too many galleries regardless. That we already have a single image (a relatively contemporary one rather than a re-imagining) which communicates much the same thing. That content that seeks to 'memorialise' (rather than to inform) should be avoided. And that it rather jarringly broke-up that section (and indeed the entire article) in a way that was unnecessary. I, personally, wouldn't be in favour of restoring it. I don't see how it aligns with the relevant guidelines on this EN Wikipedia project. (I cannot speak for the EU Wikipedia project from which it came). Guliolopez (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Not part of World War 1

It happened during the war, but was not part of it. Do any reliable references claim different? FDW777 (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Yup. Fighting the Great War: A Global History by Michael S. Neiberg. (2005). Reputable source and the book is given out at my college. Mentions it as part of the turbulent rumblings caused by the war. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC) Specifically pages 293-297. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Page 293, Neiberg says the "third plank" of German strategy in 1916 was to incite rebellion in Ireland. Matches German intelligence ops during the time. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for providing a reference that disproves your point. "turbulent rumblings caused by the war" =/= part of the war. FDW777 (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
What? He says the Germans supported the rebellion. And he does say it was part of the war. Maybe I paraphrased wrong, he mentions it as part of German strategy to hurt the British. Read the source before you make comments like that. If you don't reply reasonably, I'll make the edit again. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the Easter Rising should be labeled as part of the Great War. It occurred during the height of the fighting, included some German support, and was planned to take advantage of the UK's occupation with the larger war. This would make it part of the war. The recap, a rebellion could have happened if there was no great war, but the rebellion was significantly influenced by the war and should thus be counted as part of it. This also follows the logic of other Wikipedia articles that include various rebellions or uprisings as part of a larger war. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

References? FDW777 (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
That fact that the uprising happened during World War 1 does not make it part of World War 1. The process towards the uprising and the Irish War of Independence started long before World War 1. The Banner talk 02:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I understand that. There was a Kru rebellion in Liberia during WWI but it wasn't part of the war. I get it stop repeating that. Can you at least comment on the fact and have a dialogue with the reputable source I provided that the uprising received German support and was part of a German destabilization strategy. Read my above comment. The rebellion had a long history before it occurred, but it was significantly influenced by the Great War, enough so to be considered part of it by historians, like the one above. I will HAVE to revert again if you can't respond to this point.98.221.136.220 (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
If you HAVE to revert you will be blocked either for edit warring or for breaching the 1RR-rule. So your choice...
And by the way: your source does not prove your point. The uprising was not planned by Germany or England as a military operation. The Banner talk 03:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I never argued this was originally Germany's plan. I said it received German support and aid during the war, thus warranting its inclusion. Did you even check my source? And I meant that I will revert again if no coherent reply is given because my argument is logically sound, not cuz I want to get banned lol. All I'm asking for is an explanation why aid and support from one of the belligerents of the war, and the fact that the immediate beginning of the revolt was chosen to put pressure on the UK during the war, is not enough to make this part of WW1. As an example, a revolt occurred in Vietnam during WW1. I don't consider it part of the war because it received no foreign aid. Hope this clarifies things. My point is, if the rebellion received aid and support from a belligerent, and such aid was given to complicate the enemy's war effort, then it must be included as part of the war. What's your response to this?
https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/easter_rising_great_britain_and_ireland Here is a source from the WW1 online encyclopedia that argues that the rising was part of the war. I have sufficient reason to revert at this point (reliable sources, logical argument). If no reply is made in the following days, I will edit the page again. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC) 98.221.136.220 (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Nobody is disputing that Germany's motivations in supplying arms (which never even reached the rebels, so I don't know where you are saying "it received German support and aid during the war") were motivated by the war. But that doesn't mean the rebels shared the same motivation, since they famously said "We Serve Neither King nor Kaiser". The staging of the rising occurred during the war for the simple reason that England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity. I've read the whole of the WW1 online encyclopedia article you linked to and can't see a phrase that supports your claim, what is the phrase? Similiarly what is the exact phrase used by Neiberg, since I can't see anything he says that actually supports your edit. FDW777 (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
My problem would be with saying that the Rising was part of a German destabilization strategy. The Germans had little or no interest in Ireland. They received the rebel envoys, allowed them to try and recruit an Irish brigade from British Army POWs (which failed), gave them a small amount of second-rate rifles and ammunition (which were intercepted and lost), made a vague promise of recognition, and sent them home again. That is not strategy. Scolaire (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I'll take your criticisms into consideration. To counter, however: FDW777, you wanted phrases from the source that support my position. In the lead: "[The essay] argues that the origins, conduct, impact and aftermath of the insurrection are best understood within the wider context of the First World War." and under the Rationale and Ideology section: "The Great War provided the rationale – and pretext – for the Rising. As early as September 1914 its outbreak had allowed the militants within the IRB to persuade the hesitant Supreme Council IRB leadership to commit the organisation to rebellion despite unpropitious circumstances. Their arguments were entirely premised on the context provided by the war: a distracted Britain, a powerful ally and the promise from Germany of weapons, military assistance and diplomatic support. Even defeat, always the most likely outcome, might be transformed into political triumph when – as the rebels tended to assume – Germany won the war. Whether the insurrectionaries necessarily believed these arguments was moot: the war clinched the all-important debate within the separatist movement as to whether an insurrection should take place."

The essay's point is actually explicitly to argue in favor of including the rebellion in the Great War. I'll pull up some quotes from Neiberg when I have some time. And Scolaire, you make good points. Perhaps I stated my position wrong again. I'm comparing this to the Hindu-German Conspiracy; that one never materialized, but the Irish one did. The Germans offered support as part of a wider campaign to complicate the British war effort. My stance is corroborated by Neiberg, but as I stated above, I'll pull up some quotes later. We both agree that the Germans weren't exactly on top of the Irish revolt, but their support, however lackluster, and the revolt itself should be understood in context as part of the wider conflict, ie. part of WW1. Will quote Neiberg soon. And in addition, we all agree that the Irish dissidents had been uncomfortable under Brit rule for some time; I'm not arguing against that.165.230.224.232 (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The sentence you quote doesn't say the Easter Rising was part of WW1, quite the opposite in fact. If it was actually part of WW1, there would be no need to say it needed to be looked at in the wider context of the war. There's no dispute that to fully understand certain aspects of the Rising you have to look at the full historical context, which is why this article does so already. What it doesn't and won't do is say "Part of World War 1" immediately below the name of the event in the infobox. FDW777 (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
FDW777, I'm not interested in arguing semantics. "within wider context of WW1" means part of WW1. The author doesn't need to knock us over the head or spoonfeed us the words exactly. Most people reading that sentence will understand that to mean part of WW1. For example, the Arab revolt in 1916 can only be understood in the wider context of WW1. There was Arab nationalism brewing in the years before, but the revolt only happened in the context of the war, meaning it was part of it. And the larger quote disproves, anyways, your stance. It says the revolt happened because of and as a result of World War I, and would not have occurred the same way without it. The burden of evidence is on you honestly to provide a source that explicitly claims that the Easter Rising was a totally isolated phenomenon that was in no way whatsoever part of any of the events of WW1, in any way. Plus, I'm the only one here that provided a source that supports their position. Please consider my other points, anyhow. Perhaps we should notify a noticeboard or seek some dispute resolution if this continues for a few more days.165.230.225.191 (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't need to provide any such source. Why not? Because, ambiguous wording aside, no historian worth his salt has ever said it was part of World War 1 to start with. I've considered all your points, they are worthless. The Rising was not part of World War 1, and you don't have a single reference that says it was never mind a consensus among historians. If you think your larger quote proves anything I suggest you learn a little about the raison d'être of the IRB. Your fringe POV pushing won't be going in the article. FDW777 (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I provided evidence from reputable sources and historians. You did not. Judging from your rather violent wording FDW777, you seem wedded to some ideology that forces you to adhere to some "fringe POV" of your own. The sources I provided state my claim, you are actually lying saying otherwise. I think at this point we need some form of third-party arbitration because you're stuck on some weird position.165.230.225.79 (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm with FDW777 on this one. Michael S. Neiberg may well say, in so many words, that the Rising was "part of" WW1; so then you'd have a source. So far, so good. But who is Michael S. Neiberg? His Wikipedia article doesn't tell me much. WP:V isn't everything; there's also WP:DUE. I don't know of any other historian of all the many who have written about the war who has said that the Rising was part of WW1. And I have read just about every book on the Rising – including two by Fearghal McGarry, who wrote the article you are so fond of quoting – and none of them say that the Rising was part of WW1, although they do place it in the context of the war, as well as in the context of the Home Rule Crisis, the Volunteer split, the formation of the coalition government, etc. etc. "Best understood within the wider context of" does not mean "was a part of". It just means that there was a war going on that had a bearing on the actions of the IRB, Volunteers and Citizen Army. The Easter Rising was part of the Irish revolutionary period, and that is what should go in the "part of" field of the infobox. Scolaire (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
And what is the "extraordinary claim" that requires extraordinary evidence? That it wasn't part of WW1? Do we need extraordinary evidence that it wasn't part of the Zulu War? Or Caesar's Gallic War? You are the only one making a claim. The rest of us are just saying that the evidence is rather thin. Scolaire (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

"Me three" (or four). I don't agree with the assertion/inclusion either. The Easter Rising was not "part of" World War I. None of the extensive sources (Coogan, Townshend, Foy and Barton, McNamara or others) support a claim that it was. While these works discuss the Rising in the context of WWI (including in an "England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity" context), none describe it as being "part" of the war. Multiple other editors have noted the lack of reliable, external or academic sources to support such a claim. A request for "third-party arbitration" (on a content dispute in which one editor has suggested a change which has been rejected by four other editors - now including myself) is not really what the arbitration channels are really "for". Anyway, I think we're largely done here. This is just noise now. Guliolopez (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It was one of a number of attempts by both sides to start uprisings in the other's territory. And one motive was the hope that Ireland would have a place at any future peace conference.

And it's a fact, though not much known, that all the survivors from the 1916 Easter Rising were released at the end of the war. It was treated as part of the war.--GwydionM (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Not true. They were released in December 1916. Or, in the case of de Valera and some others, June 1917. FDW777 (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Neiberg

I will admit I only skimmed through the Neiberg reference referred to above, however I am not about to admit he says the Rising was part of WW1. Having looked at it in more detail, it is practically useless as a reference as it contains what I can only describe as basic errors, in the absence of corroboration from other Rising-specific references as he offers no footnotes for fact checking. His area of expertise may be 20th-century military history, but it doesn't appear he researched Ireland particularly well.

  • page 295 - "A number of Irishmen however, saw the war not as a chance to be granted Home Rule by a reluctant government in London, but to seize independence with their own hands. Led by Roger Casement, Irish separatists raised money among the Irish community in the United States, gathered arms, and opened up channels of communications to Germany."

I was not aware Roger Casement was ever the leader of Irish separatists, anyone else?

  • page 296 - Two other events in 1916 added fuel to the already tense situation in Ireland. Early in the year, the British government granted a more limited version of Home Rule to the Dublin parliament, but did not extend that rule to Ulster. Sensing that they had been betrayed, Irish nationalists saw the move as a beginning of a permanent division of their island and reacted with anger."

What? When? It's the first I've heard of this happening in early 1916, anyone else?

  • page 296 - "The British naturally suspected him [Casement] of treachery and presumed that a German-induced rebellion was imminent. The British army began preparations to meet such a rebellion in force. Three days later, on April 24, Irish nationalists seized the Dublin General Post Office and declared Ireland independent of the British Empire. Already on alert, British units responded in force, clearing Dublin block by block and using gunfire from riverboats to destroy nationalist strongpoints."

The general consensus among reliable references is that the British authorities were completely taken by surprise on Easter Monday despite the arrest of Casement three days earlier, and that it took time to get troops sent to Ireland to suppress the Rising. So the claim that the British Army "began preparations" and were "already on alert" would appear to be at odds with the mainstream consensus I think?

I suggest those three significant errors render Neiberg largely useless as a reference on the Easter Rising, even if he did actually say it was part of WW1. Which he didn't..... FDW777 (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Unbelievably bad! I did raise the question of how reliable a source this man was, but I didn't expect to find that he was utterly clueless. Scolaire (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
In general I don't think general history books should override ones specific to the topic, so I doubt even if Neiberg did have his facts all correct on this topic there would be much of anything he could add, and these excerpts don't reflect too well on his expertise on the subject. I mean, one could argue that Casement led the of opening of channels to Germany bit (and one could argue even that's putting it too strongly), and the British were somewhat on alert before the Rising, in the sense they knew something was planned, but following the sinking of the Aud, the arrest of Casement, and MacNeill's countermanding order, they assumed it wasn't going to happen, so they certainly were not prepared for what transpired on Easter Monday. That the Rising has a connection to the First World War is clear, and is covered in the article (the second sentence mentions it, no less), but to call it part of the war is a bit of a stretch, and doesn't seem to be backed up by reliable sources. No need to change the infobox. -R. fiend (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes I was about to concede that the Casement sentence might be referring to him leading efforts with Germany, and such errors often creep into books as a result of editors of books changing the wording of an existing sentence slightly without understanding the real meaning of what they are changing, however you posted before me. FDW777 (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, it seems that Neiberg has been proven, by FDW777 and Scolaire, in this talk page to be irrelevant to this discussion. Fair enough and I thank you guys for informing me. However, I'm still confident that the article from the online encyclopedia supports my stance. The author argues that the rising's timing and conduct were significantly influenced by the war, which is historically indisputable. There is no source claiming that the war had little to no influence on the conduct or timing of the revolt. If the revolt was significantly influenced by the Great War, what exactly is objectionable about its inclusion as part of it? By your logic, that means the Russian Revolution wasn't part of the Great War, only being an isolated revolt due to purely Russian circumstances. My point here is, and this specifically hasn't been explained, is why is the Easter Rising, despite being significantly influenced by the Great War, not part of the Great War? Scolaire points out that it is part of the Irish Revolutionary Period because it was significantly influenced by it, why not the same here? What information is necessary to conclude that the rising was part of the war? And why, despite the article to the contrary, is the rising not part of the war, and more of an isolated Irish event? To restate my position once again, I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE EASTER RISING WAS SOLELY CAUSED BY THE GREAT WAR, I UNDERSTAND THAT IT HAD PRECEDENTS AND A LONGER BACKSTORY, I'M NOT TRYING TO INSULT ANY IRISH CAUSE IF YOU FIND THAT OBJECTIONABLE. Honestly, in my opinion, I think the most logical thing here would be to keep Scolaire's recent edit, and add somewhere, infobox or not, that the Easter Rising was either part of the war (MEANING SIGNFICANTLY INFLUENCED BY IT) or influenced by it to a great degree. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

(1) The Russian Revolution article doesn't say it was part of the Great War; do you want to take your campaign over there? (2) I didn't say the Rising is part of the Irish Revolutionary Period because it was significantly influenced by it, I said it is part of the Irish revolutionary Period because that is how the Irish revolutionary period is defined. Every historian says it was part of the Irish Revolutionary Period. (3) This article puts the Rising in the context of the war in the second sentence of the lead. Please try to read at least that far before you complain about what is or isn't in it. Scolaire (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
The 1917 Potato riots were also significantly influenced by the war (food shortages and excessive prices) but by no means part of the First World War. The two Russian revolutions in 1917 are also significantly influenced by the war but not war related. Not every feat that happened in the period 1914-1918 is war-related.
Beside that: you have no realistic evidence to connect the Easter Rising with the First World War as your only source has proven to be unreliable. The Banner talk 19:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
The Potato riots article says the riots were war-related. They were caused by the war, hence war-related, hence part of the war. And the Russian Revolution was war-related, caused by the stresses of the war, only an idiotic historian would argue otherwise.98.221.136.220 (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
So you think that the Potato Riots were part of the war, even though the Netherlands were neutral and not involved in the war at all? Please, start doing your homework. The Banner talk 20:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
The online encyclopedic article is a credible source. And if mention of the War is in the second sentence, what's your fear of putting it in the infobox: no harm done. Can someone please answer my question: why does significant influence not warrant inclusion? Answer this adequately and I'll drop it. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll answer you with another question: why does "inclusion" have to mean addition to the infobox? The war is included; it's just not in the infobox. The infobox is a panel...that summarizes key features of the page's subject. The war is significant. The consensus here is that it's not key. Now drop it, please. Scolaire (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Irish nationalists tried to exploit the war by obtaining German support, how could the Rising possibly be divorced from the war?

Herein were the intellectual foundations for the national liberation movements which German sponsored for India, Persia, Tunisia, Egypt, Ireland, and elsewhere.

— Strachan The First World War (2003) p. 1132

Keith-264 (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Not divorced, Keith (did you actually read the discussion?). Just not in the infobox. Scolaire (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
For the nth time, can you answer my last question? And why not in the infobox, how is that objectionable?98.221.136.220 (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I did answer. Consensus is against putting it in the infobox. Wikipedia works by consensus. "Objectionable" is a loaded term. We just don't agree with you that it belongs. Scolaire (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, yes. I understand you disagree. Very well. But why do you disagree? Specifically, why doesn't significant influence warrant inclusion? That's my only beef. And I use the word objectionable because you have given no reason why, if it's in the second sentence, the "part of WW1" part can never ever be part of the infobox. Honest confusion here. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Do you have reliable sources? And please, do not start the same c**p here too.] Just come up with reliable sources. The Banner talk 20:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
The online article I provided up top which agrees with me, so please answer my question. And please stop stalking me and vandalizing any edits I do. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
To my opinion it is you who is vandalising, as this is again not a reliable source. For both articles: do you have any reliable sources or is it still just your private opinion? The Banner talk 21:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
The same objection has been made by multiple editors, and contrary to the assertion it is not a case of people objecting without giving a reason. The reason stated to the inclusion of the phrase "Part of World War 1" has consistently been that the Rising is NOT "Part of World War 1". FDW777 (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Lads, I think it's time to deny recognition. --Scolaire (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I concur. The Banner talk 21:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Also concur. This is just noise. To trolling/IDHT levels. Guliolopez (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

No excluding it from the infobox is fatuous. Keith-264 (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. It's not just me. You haven't offered a reason why it positively can't be included. Yes historians claim its part of the Irish Revolutionary Period, good for them, but why do they do it? Because of significant influence. Same logic for WW1. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, with no actual reason given to deny inclusion, and with another Military History editor, Keith-264, agreeing with me against a bunch of ideologues (what stake they have in this, I wish I knew), I will edit the infobox again. First, however, I'll compile enough sources that state that the rebellion is part of the Great War, paste links to them here, then make the edit. Fair enough in my opinion. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The list:

http://theconversation.com/how-world-war-i-contributed-to-the-easter-rising-53409 (pretty good)

https://wwionline.org/articles/strike-freedom-1916-easter-rising-and-united-states/ ("ok" source, shows connections with the war)

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ireland_and_World_War_I (Oh Wow! The Wikipedia page mentions the easter rising as part of the war. Who would have known?)

https://www.rte.ie/centuryireland/index.php/articles/the-first-world-war-1916 (good source as well)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/britain_wwone/ireland_wwone_01.shtml (the BBC. Only a fool would deny this source)

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/irelands-role-in-the-first-world-war (the imperial war museum mentions the rising in the context, hence part of the war)

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/easter_rising_great_britain_and_ireland (this one, again, which proves my point)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMWP9G6gecc (yes. A video and thus not exactly reliable IMO. But goes to show that my position that the rebellion is part of the war is a widespread belief)

https://www.firstworldwar.com/features/easterrising.htm (shows how rising's timing and conduct, once again, was heavily influenced by the war, and is thus considered part of it)

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/seeing-wwi-and-the-irish-revolution-as-linked-great-wars-1.3620443 (See, even Irish people think they're connected)

What do all these source have in common? It shows that my position is a widespread, accepted belief, and that it is supported by a majority of people, and actual, and not self-styled, scholars. Any reversion against me at this point has to give some modicum of evidence in response, not just "I think the rebellion isn't part of the war because I said so.98.221.136.220 (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Posting links to lots of random websites that generally don't even say the Rising was part of World War 1 changes nothing, especially when the claim being added is not supported by actual historians who have published books on the Rising. FDW777 (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Reference? My sources are valid and from RS sites, do you have any reference to back up your claims that the rebellion wasn't part of the war? Oh, and are you going to vandalize the Ireland and World War I article, which mentions the Easter Rising (because it's a part of it), to get rid of any mention of the rising? 98.221.136.220 (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Skimming through this link dump I'm seeing a lot of stuff about the connections between the two, which no one denies exists, but not referring to the Rising as another theatre of WWI. If there is such a reference, could you at the very least quote it and say approximately where in the linked article it can be found? This is frankly starting to remind me of the habits of an insufferable user who thankfully departed years ago, after making these talk pages an enormous headache for anyone remotely involved with them. -R. fiend (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
The only insufferable thing is not me or you, but the illogic I'm having to deal with. Check the Finnish Civil War. It's considered part of World War I, and just like the Easter Rising, you're going to have a tough time finding a historian saying explicitly in these exact words "It was part of the Great War for these reasons." Frankly I've never read a historian saying "The Battle of Verdun was part of WW1," simply because he doesn't have to say so. He or she assumes the reader is intelligent enough to know that including it among a database of, say, other articles on WW1 means he or she considers it part of WW1 (as the online WW1 encyclopedia article shows, the YouTube video, and others). Up in the discussion I quoted that the encyclopedic article as saying that the timing, conduct, and outcome of the Rising was determined by the Great War: the two are inseparable. The article really does argue that. See what Keith-264 posted on the arbitration page. And, I'll repeat ad nauseum, significant influence warrants inclusion. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello. As has been stated umpteen times already, the basis (casus belli) for the Easter Rising events:
  • Predate the First World War by many years. Decades. Centuries even. The background to the Rising is not "part" of the background for WWI.
  • Are entirely separate from those which precipitated the First World War. Diametrically so. The reasons for the Rising are not "part" of the reasons for WWI.
  • Involve, except where overlaps are already stated and acknowledged within the article and elsewhere, separate protagonists than those involved in the First World War. The stakeholders in the Rising are not materially "part" of those in WWI.
The body of the article correctly and appropriately discusses the Rising in the context of broader events. Proposing to "summarise" and "simply" this complexity, with an illadvised and overly-simplistic "part of" claim in the infobox is NOT a representation of the body. Or the sources. Trying to foist this change, in a way which involves warring, claiming that "expertise trumps consensus and the sources", and generally engaging in a way which is contrary to project norms is just pointless. Pointless noise. I am not engaging with this noise any more. Find some other outlet for this trolling please.
Bye. Guliolopez (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

You set up a series of straw men, red herrings, and ahistorical statements as your argument? At least you answered my call for a summary of your argument. Let's see if it holds:

  • "Predate the First World War by many years. Decades. Centuries even. The background to the Rising is not "part" of the background for WWI." Firstly, tell me something I don't know, you're preaching to the converted. No one here is arguing against that. Secondly, this point is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It doesn't matter if the Rising had origins predating the war by years, centuries, even a millenia. That has no bearing whatsoever whether it should be considered part of the Great War because of the heavy influence it played with timing, conduct, and outcome. The Finnish Civil War had class and social tensions predating WW1 but is considered part of WW1 because of the heavy influence played by it. Any historian, or editor here for that matter, would have a field day ripping apart this argument. Thirdly, no one here is arguing the "deep" background is part of WW1. The discussion is about the Rising itself and its immediate causes, so focus.
  • "Are entirely separate from those which precipitated the First World War. Diametrically so. The reasons for the Rising are not "part" of the reasons for WWI." A red herring once again. No on here is arguing that the Irish wanted to make Ireland the Kaiser's playground in 1916. Sure the Irish had reasons to rebel not connected to the German cause. Whoop-de-doo-da, that proves nothing again. The Germans tried to support anything that complicated the Allied war effort. Hence support during the Mexican Revolution, Ireland, etc. And the reasons for the Rising (timing, launch, and conduct specifically) are part of WW1, the WW1 online article argues that. Who do I trust more? The online article written by a historian. What your saying is a blatant lie and I'll have none of that.
  • "Involve, except where overlaps are already stated and acknowledged within the article and elsewhere, separate protagonists than those involved in the First World War. The stakeholders in the Rising are not materially "part" of those in WWI."The fact that the Germans tried (and failed) to supply arms show some material connection. And the stresses and suffering of the Irish people during the war, helping to launch the Rising, shows that the Rising is part of the war. Arguing otherwise is frankly a despicable disgrace to the Irish people, to deny that they played a painful part in that history. And your protagonists, which you do not name, tried to contact the Germans for support. So again, a blatant lie, and a foolish one at that.

Your argument does not hold up to scrutiny. And it's disturbing in its shoddy ahistorical analysis. At any rate, I provided sources and you didn't. Plus, your (very odd) fear of mentioning the Rising as part of the war causes me to believe you have some odd bias motivating you at this point. You've given me every reason to edit at this point. Dispute resolution perhaps? 98.221.136.220 (talk) 07:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

R. Fiend asked you "Skimming through this link dump I'm seeing a lot of stuff about the connections between the two, which no one denies exists, but not referring to the Rising as another theatre of WWI. If there is such a reference, could you at the very least quote it and say approximately where in the linked article it can be found?". You failed to provide any quotes. In the absence of quotes that clearly and unambiguously support your claim, your references will be treated as irrelevant. FDW777 (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
"And the stresses and suffering of the Irish people during the war, helping to launch the Rising, shows that the Rising is part of the war". What on earth are you talking about? FDW777 (talk) 10:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Fearghal McGarry

Generic apple = First World War
Granny Smith apple = Finnish Civil War
Orange = Easter Rising

It has been repeatedly claimed that this essay by Fearghal McGarry argues that the Easter Rising was part of World War 1. In fact, it does nothing of the sort, the opposite in fact. I suggest clicking on the 'Conclusion' section and reading the third paragraph from the bottom. It states "The last two decades, however, have witnessed a radical shift in attitudes about both the First World War and the Rising, evidenced by the warm public response when in 2011 the British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, honoured Irishmen who fought for – and against – the Crown in both conflicts during the first British royal visit to Ireland since independence". Since he refers to "both conflicts" it is clear he regards the First World War as one conflict and the Easter Rising as another conflict. FDW777 (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Quote showing influence:
"The Great War provided the rationale – and pretext – for the Rising. As early as September 1914 its outbreak had allowed the militants within the IRB to persuade the hesitant Supreme Council IRB leadership to commit the organisation to rebellion despite unpropitious circumstances. Their arguments were entirely premised on the context provided by the war: a distracted Britain, a powerful ally and the promise from Germany of weapons, military assistance and diplomatic support. Even defeat, always the most likely outcome, might be transformed into political triumph when – as the rebels tended to assume – Germany won the war. Whether the insurrectionaries necessarily believed these arguments was moot: the war clinched the all-important debate within the separatist movement as to whether an insurrection should take place."
And you're twisting McGarry's words to fit your POV, nothing is "clear." Yes, also the Finnish Civil War and WW1 are considered two conflicts, one more specific than the other, but it is still part of WW1. Seriously, take your illogic here too. Honestly, I think both you (all editors other than Keith-264) and I are tired of running around in circles. I won't edit war anymore (not interested in getting banned) or anything of that sort, and our discussion is proving fruitless. I'll drop discussing this (so as to spare all of you the trouble, getting close to Christmas anyhow), but I'll still try to go to some higher power at some point, maybe dispute resolution or something other. G'day. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
The only thing McGarry is saying is that the Rising was very closely connected to WWI in terms of timing and power shifts. McGarry is not saying that it should be described as one of the battles of WWI, which is basically your position. You are trying to say that WWI included the battle of Easter Rising, which is ridiculous. Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
First, read my above message, you are blatantly wrong (Finnish Civil War again, think). Second, everyone stop replying to this discussion. The conversation is over, no one is changing anything. This discussion is dead. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
You don't get to have the last word, while maintaining you'll be returning to this at a later date and have it appear you won the argument as nobody replied to your point. As has been repeatedly pointed out by everyone that disagrees with you, there is no dispute that World War 1 had some influence over events in Ireland. Every book of the many written about the Rising agrees on this point. For this reason, as also pointed out repeatedly and never actually acknowledged by you, the second sentence of the lead ends with "while the United Kingdom was fighting the First World War". It would be wholly inappropriate if the article didn't point this out, considering how well it is covered in the many books about the Rising. However the relationship between World War 1 and the Rising is not as simple as saying in the infobox "Part of World War 1", as it is not an accepted fact among historians. FDW777 (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

While Germany was fighting in WW1, the Finnish Civil War broke out, and it intervened. Hence, part of WW1. Applying same logic here to, this is not a matter of simplification. Let us agree to disagree and stop bickering, so stop. Do what Scolaire said, just ignore this and I probably won't return. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, stop bickering and come up with reliable sources. The Banner talk 10:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Finnish Civil War. Easter Rising. Apples. Oranges. FDW777 (talk) 10:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Possibly valid point. Nice pictures though. Got me hungry. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
And Merry Christmas!98.221.136.220 (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Look to the sources

The official Proclamation included the words "supported by her exiled children in America and by gallant allies in Europe". (The Proclamation of the Irish Republic in 1916).

There was also heavy reliance on a shipload of German arms, brought along with Sir Roger Casement in a German submarine. And some feeling that the Rising had become hopeless when these were intercepted.

It was one of many instances of the two sides seeking to aid rebels against the other.

It is much clearer than the Finnish Civil War, which occurred after the regular government of Russia was overthrown.

I can see no sensible objection to adding something like:

Connections to World War One

"Irish Nationalism split over reactions to World War Two. A majority recruited men for the war effort. A minority refused. And both they and the Ulster Unionists had already made paramilitary preparations, anticipating a Civil War in Ireland.

"Some, most notably Sir Roger Casement, sought German support for an armed uprising. This was in line with both sides seeking to encourage rebels against the other.

"The actual rising was expected to include a shipload of German arms, brought along with Sir Rodger Casement in a German submarine. Some IRA leaders tried to call it off, feeling that the Rising had become hopeless when these were intercepted.

"In Dublin, the official Proclamation included the words "supported by her exiled children in America and by gallant allies in Europe". (The Proclamation of the Irish Republic in 1916).

Is there anything factually mistaken in all this? --GwydionM (talk) 10:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

That's not what's being discussed and being objected to. The specific change being made was this, adding text reading "Part of World War I" that appeared right at the top of the infobox.
The change you are proposing is redundant, since it already appears in the article in the appropriate places without the glaring errors included in your suggestion. I don't understand your suggestion that we should "Look to the sources" when this is what we've already done, and I don't mean tripsavvy.com. I currently own eight books solely about the Rising and have borrowed several others from libraries, Scolaire has read most, if not all, of the books on the Rising. We don't need to rely on useless web sources or people posting what they think are "facts" but are in reality errors. FDW777 (talk) 11:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Since it blatantly WAS part of World War One, why the bitter hostility to saying so? --GwydionM (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you have sources that state that the GPO was a battlefield in the war between Germany and Great Britain? The Banner talk 18:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

It was a war by people proud to state they were allies of Imperial Germany. It seems that this fact upsets you, so you'd prefer to pretend it was not a fact.

As Marx once said, ignorance helps no one.--GwydionM (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

When you need personal attacks to hide the fact that you have no answer or even sources to prove your point... The Banner talk 12:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

What certain people seem to be missing here is that the purpose of the infobox is to quickly sum up a few of the essential and indisputably true facts about the subject - in this case the main participants, when and where it occurred, etc. If the article cares to address whether there was enough German involvement to make it part of WWI, or whether it was simply a concurrent conflict with some connection to that war, the infobox is decidedly not the place to do it. While I don't particularly think it's necessary, if this really needs to be addressed in the article, how about proposing a paragraph or two covering the topic which can be discussed here on the talk page and then perhaps inserted into the article? It would require reliable sources, and not original research or synthesis (such as insisting that a reference to "gallant allies in Europe" makes it de facto part of the war). Yes, it's more work just adding "part of World War I" to the infobox, but if it's worth doing (and it may or may not be) it's worth doing right. -R. fiend (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, GwydionM did propose a paragraph for the article. It just got mixed up in the dispute about the infobox. I'd have to read the article again to see if there's anything in it that isn't there already; FDW777 says there isn't. As far as the talk page is concerned, it would be better if GwydionM could stop using phrases like "bitter hostility", "It seems that this fact upsets you" and "ignorance helps no one." Nobody is upset by, hostile to, or ignorant of the facts as stated. We're just stating our preference that "Part of World War I" not be added to the infobox. Scolaire (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I've read it. The Planning the Rising and Build-up to Easter Week sections say far more about the connections to the War than GwydionM's proposed paragraph. I count 17 instances of "Germany" or "German" and five instances of "war". Therefore, additional vague sentences are not needed. Scolaire (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I am not a Wikipedia entry, so do not get obsessed with what I said.
I was reacting to the silly situation of the Easter Rising not being listed with World War One casualties, because some people will not let it be listed as part of that war.
Does anyone seriously doubt it was just that? With specific reasons, like all other participants. --GwydionM (talk) 12:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid none of that makes any sense to me. Literally, no sense. Also, can you please have a read of Help:Indent and learn to indent your posts? It's very easy to learn, and not doing it is disruptive. I've done it for you this time, but please do it yourself in future. Scolaire (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
What I believe he means is that both he and the IP have little interest in improving this article, or that's reading between the lines anyway since they won't say it directly. What they are interested in doing is changing the World War I casualties article to include the Easter Rising, and the whole purpose of this never-ending discussion is get this article changed to use as leverage in their attempt to change the other article.
Both the change to the infobox and the addition of a "Connections to World War One" section have been rejected (can I add a "Disconnections to World War One section? It will include the fact Irish people had a long history of staging violent rebellions against British without any German "help", We Serve Neither King Nor Kaiser, that only Plunkett and Casement ever had any contact with Germany, Pearse's court-martial statement of "I repudiate the assertion of the Prosecutor that I sought to aid and abet England’s enemy. Germany is no more to me than England is" and so on) and are unlikely to ever gain consensus. Unless specific changes with reliable sources are suggested, I probably won't be bothering to reply to any more of this tiresome discussion. FDW777 (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I was wondering what this obsession with including it in WWI was about, and now it seems it's in order to include the casualties in with those of that war. Talk about a lot of fuss over nothing. Yeah, in a war which killed nearly 20 million, those 485 additional deaths really make the difference. -R. fiend (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Interesting. And seemingly confirmed by this thread. This, frankly, is where this whole nonsense falls down in the heap it was destined to fall. If the Irish civilian deaths were intended, for example, to be put alongside the Central Powers (Germany, Turkey, Finland, etc) in the casualties table in the middle of that other article (the "Civilian deaths (military action and crimes against humanity)" column), then that would be BEYOND inappropriate. And would stand alone (if all of the other references did not already confirm it) as to why the Rising should not be treated as if it were part of World War I. As it was not. What a load of noise over nothing. If the editors involved had explained their intent from the off, then this whole thing could've been wrapped up ages ago. I'm not contributing to this noise-fest any more. Guliolopez (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Not true. I never intended to put Irish casualties with the Central Powers. My initial edit, which was reverted, put Irish losses with the Allies. But if you care to look at the thread you mention, I state that I will not (and can not) add Irish losses to the article until the discussion here was resolved. Since my suggestions have been rejected, I have dropped that particular edit, and that is reflected in the WW1 casualties talk page. If you look at my edit history, you'll see that I've dropped the matter all together, as well. I may have reached out to other editors in the past (and was later warned, in which I promptly stopped), but I do not control their actions now. It is true, however, that my edits were based on changing the WW1 casualties page (if that violated some rule I am unaware of, apologies). Again, I am no longer trying to edit this page or any other with regards to the Easter Rising. Cheers. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

You edits here were just as much nonsense as adding the victims of the 1917 Potato riots as victims of the First World War. The Banner talk 19:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Edits by Cathalohagan25

@Cathalohagan25: your edits, when not gibberish and/or page breaking, do not conform to what the references say. For example here you add a claim that the rest of Irish volunteers marched in Clare with rifles and bad end ammunition but no military action was taken due to the shortage of weapons. Ignoring that "bad end ammunition" isn't even a thing apparently, the reference doesn't say that march happened at the time of the Rising. What the reference actually says is

  • Witness, continuing said that complaints were conveyed to him that the movements of these bodies were dangerous. In one case he would like to mention that a leader named Michael Brennan, before a routine march, supplied his men with bad end ammunition. On another occasion when addressing his own men, or branch, he said: - “I want to say a few words about the seizure of arms. My advice to you is if such attempt is made as to seize your arms, use them, and not the butts but the other ends and what is in them.
  • Chairman:- What is the date of that?
  • The 17th March last

So the "bad end ammunition" appears to be similar to the 17th March incident, it's past behaviour of Michael Brennan not events during the Rising. FDW777 (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Please @Cathalohagan25:, stop what you are doing (or trying to do) for a second, and engage with the other editors here? Who will be happy to discuss your goals, and (if there is agreement on what those are and whether they are appropriate for this article) will help apply them as needed? Otherwise, randomly adding text and quotes (including the phrase "bad end ammunition" which has no known meaning or history outside of that Clare Champion report from June 1916) is not improving the article. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh I understand now , yes , so sorry . I struggle understanding such language in newspapers. Cathalohagan25 (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone understands that language. My best guess is it should be "something and ammunition", perhaps "guns". However my own guesswork wouldn't be allowed in the article, and it's a moot point anyway since the sentence doesn't appear to be about what happened during the Rising. FDW777 (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Rather strange that a historian has trouble with that language. But beside that, you dropped it rather randomly in the article, making a big mess of it. The Banner talk 09:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Antrim removed

I have removed another attempt by @Bbx118: to add Antrim to the infobox. The Irish News "reference" provided says nothing about any activity in Antrim or Belfast during the Rising. FDW777 (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Easter_Rising/Archive_6&oldid=1136686635"