Talk:Easter Rising/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Clean up of Aftermath section?

The legacy section cites a range of sources (which is good) but provides no analysis of their relative strengths. The views of Berresford Ellis are given a lot of prominence (whilst being clearly demarcated). The overall effect is (a) the article is unclear, and (b) it reads more like the transcript of a school debate than an encyclopaedia article.

I understand this is an emotive issue for many contributors, and this makes edits tricky. Is there some way we can improve the quality of this section in an accurate and unbiased way? winterstein (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Dublin Lord mayor

Anybody know who was the Lord Mayor during the 90th celebrationWgh001 (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It was Catherine Byrne [1]. Fribbler (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Rebellion or Rising

I have reverted an edit to 'Rebellion' and turned it back to 'Rising'. The initial rational for 'rebellion' was that rising is not a well understood term outside of Ireland, however I do not accept this line of reasoning, partly as I don't live in Ireland, but mainly as 'Rising' has been used to describe a number of armed insurrections, such as 'Hungarian Rising' in the past.

It was then reverted again, this time, the argument being that there were only a 'handful' of percipients. The reality of the rising is that many thousands were mobilised to take part but didn't due to poor logistics and bad luck (the loss of arms). There are a lot of questions as to whether or not it was a popular rising or not (and to my grandfather in Donegal it must have been as he joined the volunteers during Easter week of 1916 when he heard a rising was occurring in Dublin and remained a member until the Civil War. He told me that most of his friends also joined up that week and had expected to be mobilised and out fighting). I think that 'rising' is a more neutral term than rebellion which implies a move against lawful authority. I have seen an interesting file in the National Museum of Wales which contains some newspaper cutting etc from 1916 and on the file there are a series of 'rebellion' 'rising' 'rebellion' 'rising' labels each one of which has been crossed out and change according to the whim of whom ever was using the file. It would be a shame if we started to do this here. We could perhaps use 'uprising', 'armed action', 'military action', 'insurgency' as other ways of describing the events of Easter week 1916.

EoinBach (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to weigh in on the side of "rebellion" for a couple reasons. First of all, while "rising" isn't exactly esoteric, "rebellion" is a more widely known term, and in this case it seems less redundant: "The Easter Rising was a rising..." just sounds bad. I really don't see any PoV in the word "rebellion"; it has been widely described as such. We could debate whether British rule in Ireland constituted a "lawful authority" til the cows come home, but the British ruled there for centuries; it's hard to call such an authority illegal when they're the ones making the laws. That being said, I'm fine with some of the other suggestions you mentioned, as my main objection is to using the word rising twice in the same sentence. "Insurgency" or "insurrection" might be better. -R. fiend (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, the turnout was pretty small, regardless of how many might have turned out under different circumstances. -R. fiend (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, "rebellion" is not a more widely known term, and nothing has been provide to support this suggestion. There is no need to "debate whether British rule in Ireland constituted a "lawful authority" til the cows come home," because the simple fact is, under who's law and constitution, enacted by what legitimacy, other than military conquest, did England have a right to rule Ireland? History demonstrates that at no time, in any generation, did the Irish people accept the 'legitimacy' of the conquerors. Peter Berresford Ellis. EoinBach is correct in their reasoning. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. Legal authority did not and, even today, does not necessarily require "acceptance" by the people of "conquerors". This is an example of presentism - judging the events of the past by the standards of the day. Ireland was a lawful possession of the English (and later British) monarch for centuries: accepted internationally throughout the entire period. Mooretwin (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I initially reverted 'rising' to 'rebellion', not to make any statement regarding 'legitimacy', but simply because I do not think 'rising' is as widely understood a term. Capitalised, the word is less ambiguous. If people feel otherwise, then fine. The present term 'uprising' on the otherhand suggests a mass revolt, which the Easter Rising certainly was not. RashersTierney (talk) 10:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I read quite a lot on these discussion that such and such "suggests" this or "suggests" that, and never any rational offered to support the suggestion. It’s similar to the “suggestion” that "rebellion" is a more widely known term, mentioned above. I don't know, if the term 'uprising' "suggests" a mass revolt, likewise I don't know, if the term "rebellion" is a more widely known term then Rising, but what I do know is that "rebellion" is a loaded term, based on my reading and citing of Peter Berresford Ellis above. I've no problem with "insurrection" in place of 'uprising' but I really don't what to be now told that "insurrection" also "suggests" this and "suggests" that without some supporting information. I hope I’m not coming across as abrupt, but the whole “suggests” argument is a none starter with me in the absence of supporting ref’s, and should not form the bases of discussions. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Perish the thought! What you're clearly trying to do is close down any discussion with sarcasm. RashersTierney (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have to say "The Easter Rising was a rising" is not good prose. What word should replace the second "rising" I will leave up to others to discuss. O Fenian (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The present construction " to regain independence from (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|Britain)" is a blatant POV, also "a uprising" is grammatically incorrect. Why fix what aint broke? RashersTierney (talk) 11:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If why fix what aint broke is your intent, why are we having a discussion to amend rebellion to rising in the first place? I fail so see any POV in the present construction also. O Fenian (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

User:RashersTierney what I’m trying to do is limit the discussion to what we know and can support with reliable sources. Why have endless discussions based on nothing other then editor’s opinions? I say quite clearly above that “I hope I’m not coming across as abrupt” only for you to say that I’m “clearly trying …close down any discussion with sarcasm.” I’m trying to open up the discussion to one of informed opinions, citing authors and books. You view that this is sarcasm can only be supported if it suggests that it will limit your participation in the discussion and that is not your intension is it? O Fenian, I agree that "The Easter Rising was a rising" is not good prose. I'll replace the second "rising" with "insurrection." Another alternative would be to replace the first line with "The Easter Rising (Irish: Éirí Amach na Cásca)[1] was an attempt by Irish republicans to regain independence from Britain." This cuts out "was a uprising staged in Ireland during Easter Week, 1916. The Rising..." and addresses the problem also? --Domer48_'fenian' 11:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added a reference to support the text. To "suggest" that it "is a blatant POV" brings us stright back to the point I already made above and the need for "informed opinions." --Domer48_'fenian' 11:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Why substitute the term United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for Britain by piping? Its misleading. RashersTierney (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not pip it so I don't know! Again, you say "Its misleading" but don't explain why? What happened to "informed opinions."--Domer48_'fenian' 12:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Domer, I didnt say you were responsible for the piping. It came to attention during the unrelated matter of rebellion v's rising. The terms have entirely different meanings surely?. RashersTierney (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

To say that a rising is a rising is poor prose. Apart from that, while the event is widely known as the "Rising", in reality said terminology is rather misleading as it implies a "rising up" of the people. What happened in reality was that a relatively small number of militants engaged in a rebellion and virtually none of the people whom they purported to represent responded. That is hardly a "rising". I suspect the term "Easter Rising" emanates from Irish nationalist discourse. Mooretwin (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

RashersTierney do you see now why we should look for "informed opinions." Another good example is this little gem, "in reality said terminology is rather misleading as it implies a "rising up" of the people" all just opinion dressed as fact. Here is another one from the same editor "I suspect" therefore I revert! Not one reference is used, and still they revert. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A little disconcerting to find myself on the same side of an argument as Moortwin. Don't think its ever happened before, but in this case he is right. Easter Rising with a capital R has a widely understood meaning that rising as a general description of what happened in Ireland in 1916 does not accurately portray. RashersTierney (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Easter Rising with a capital R has a widely understood meaning? That is sourced were and by who? Or is it just your opinion? When some sources are provided, we may have something to discuss. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I see Domer48 has added a source. Not that one is needed to say that Irish republicans wanted independence from Great Britain, not from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. O Fenian (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Rebellion" is used by several sources:

• The National Archives of the Republic of Ireland
• MSN Encarta
• Ireland-Online
• Easter Rebellion by Max Caulfield (1995)

Mooretwin (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I also see Mooretwin is adding false sources to push his point of view, like normal. The BBC source does not source the text in the article, the closest it gets is "committed to the use of force to gain Irish independence". This will be reverted at the earliest convenience, and I suggest Mooretwin stops editing in such a transparently biased way. O Fenian (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You didn't notice the other four sources, then? You could also try looking up a dictionary or a thesaurus, which will give "rebellion" as a synonym for "rising".

I suggest that you retract your accusation that it is "normal" for me to "add false sources". I am unaware of ever having done it, and I challenge you to provide evidence. On this occasion, it was a mistake - the site was thrown up by a Google search. Remember: WP:NPA. Mooretwin (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC).

Since you just added back the false source, I would not hold your breath waiting for me to retract my wholly correct comment. O Fenian (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't "add back the false source". Instead of making further accusations, please retract your original accusation, which is untrue and for which you have no evidence. Mooretwin (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"Insurrection" is fine, by the way. I'll add in that it is also known as the Easter Rebellion. Mooretwin (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Several sources here from the 1916-1921 period refer to it either as Easter Rebellion or Irish Rebellion. Encyclopedia Britannica notes that it was also called the Easter Rebellion, so I can't see a problem with mentioning that. Valenciano (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Lee illustrates the point (distinction between rising and Rising) well.Ireland, 1912-1985 In every reference to the anticipated popular uprising before the event, Lee spells it with small r. Subsequent to Easter week all references to Rising are capitalised. There was no popular uprising but the events became known as the Rising. RashersTierney (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Disappointing that BigDunc has weighed in, in support of Domer again, to remove referenced text. Does he deny that the Easter Rising is also known as a rebellion? If so, how does he respond to the citations? What are his reasons for seeking to suppress this alternative description? Mooretwin (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't help thinking that these two arguments, 'also known as' and 'gain'/'regain', are really much ado about nothing. On the first, the word "rebels" is used throughout the article, and there is a long-standing consensus that it is an acceptable term, so why should there be a problem with stating the well-known fact that it was also known as the Easter Rebellion? It was also known - whether erroneously or not - as the Sinn Féin Rebellion. Again, this is a fact, not a slur! On the second point, 'gain' and 'regain' obviously reflect a difference in POV between unionist and republican that will never be resolved. So why not put it back to what it originally was: "The rising was an attempt by militant Irish republicans to win independence from Britain by force of arms"? Scolaire (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Capitalise Rising and fine by me. RashersTierney (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Easter Rebellion does not seem like a well known alternative name, not in the many sources that I have access to. I would suggest it should not be given such weight as to be in the lead in bold. Also "gain" is obviously misleading, as it implies Ireland had never been an independent nation. O Fenian (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

When was Ireland an "independent nation"? Mooretwin (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Easter Rebellion is a redirect to this page. I see no reason why it should be censored. RashersTierney (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. As already noted above it is cited by Encyclopaedia Britannica as an alternative name, as well as MSN Encarta. O Fenian's lack of access to such sources should not be a reason to censor the alternative name. No-one is suggesting that the article be retitled, just that the fact of its alternative name be mentioned. Mooretwin (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I also await a retraction of O Fenian's unfounded above accusation against me. Mooretwin (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Also known as the Easter Rebellion, with the name of a book as a reference? What sort of idiotic nonsence is that? If that’s the case it is also know as The Bravest of the Brave, 1916 The Long Revolution, The GPO and the Easter Rising, Agony of Easter Week, and The Insurrection in Dublin because their all the names of books. That’s how ridiculous some editors get just to make a point. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"Under who's law and constitution, enacted by what legitimacy, other than military conquest, did England have a right to rule Ireland? History demonstrates that at no time, in any generation, did the Irish people accept the 'legitimacy' of the conquerors." Peter Berresford Ellis. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult to imagine how historians or anyone else could measure the acceptance or otherwise of the "legitimacy" among the Irish people of English rule during, for example, the Middle Ages. But, regardless, whether or not the people accepted the legitimacy is irrelevant. Democracy is quite a recent phenomenon and certainly wasn't accepted as any kind of legal principle until very recently. England and Britain's ownership of Ireland was always recognised internationally as lawful. Mooretwin (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The answer to those questions - under whose law? The law of Christendom, and subequently international law. Enacted by what legitimacy? The legitimacy first of the Pope and later of the recognised English and British monarchs, and later still of the Parliament of Ireland, and then the Parliament of the UK. Finally, military conquest is a recognised means of establishing legal authority. The history of the world is the history of military conquest. Mooretwin (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

So you think it is "idiotic nonsence" (sic) if users try to argue using the title of a book as a reference? Interesting. Good job virtually all the books above are available online in PDF format isn't it? The Britannica ref isn't a book. BBC also alternatively refer to it as Easter Rebellion (note the proper noun.) History Channel encyclopedia andTime Magazine 1940 "Easter Rebellion." Academic article in The Historian 23 Aug 2007, p605-618 deals with "American Responses to the Easter Rebellion, 1916." I could go on but I think you get the picture. Sufficient reliable sources for this to be noted as an alternative name. Valenciano (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverted per Wikipedia:Consensus. PurpleA (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if there's a consensus then there's a consensus. The fact is just not important enough to be edit-warring over, so let's leave it out - there's no great 'truth' being withheld. But, in God's name, let's not have another article where totally inconsequential facts in the lead are followed by strings of citations! We're trying to write an encyclopedia that people can read. Scolaire (talk) 08:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think there are too many references, then remove the superfluous references and keep one: not a problem. To agree to the censorship of the fact that the Easter Rising is also known as the Easter Rebellion is to give in to obstructive editors who haven't even articulated any reason why this fact should be censored. Mooretwin (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

On the first point, all references in the lead are superfluous. If the name/names of the Rising are to be discussed, it should be in its own section in the article, suitably referenced. The pupose of the lead is to summarise the article, not to make points or to find an excuse for edit-warring. On the second, censorship is the use of state or group power to control freedom of expression, not the statement of a majority view (which is not my view BTW) that a given fact is not sufficiently important for inclusion. There are too many Irish-related articles where the lead - not the article proper - is being used as a battleground between individuals who dislike each other's POV, and ending up unreadable as a result. I want the silliness to end now. Scolaire (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Scolaire, no need for refs re. Easter Rebellion in lead. But the expression is widely used for the subject of this page (mainly in British historiography) and should be included in the lead so that it is clearly understood early on in the article that the Easter Rebellion was not a separate event. RashersTierney (talk) 11:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with RashersTierney and happy for the references to be removed. Mooretwin (talk) 11:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, Rashers, you do not agree with me. What I said was that the lead should state only what is in the article proper. No fact should be in the lead if it is not stated (and referenced if need be) in the article below. What people should be discussing here is whether and how the alternative name should be dealt with in the article. Including it in the lead is a formality once that is done. Scolaire (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I see your point now. Sorry for the unintended misrep. RashersTierney (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't agree with Scolaire on this. It would seem unnecessary and silly to create a new section in this or any other article dealing with alternative names for the event. It seems far more appropriate to deal with it cleanly in the lead. Are there any precedents for this? I can't see any harm in the lead mentioning the alternative name and leaving it at that - this seems to be the practice for other events/persons/organisations for which there are alternative names. Mooretwin (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any "harm" in that either. The "harm" comes when a sizeable number of people disagree with the edit and one or more editors persist in pushing that edit to the point of edit-warring and histrionic arguments about "censorship". The article is still in very poor condition, and editors would be far better employed trying to bring it up to Good Article status instead of prolonging these battles over fairly inconsequential details. Scolaire (talk) 11:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

But why do they disagree? No reasons have been put forward. It should not be the case that cabals of POV editors should be allowed to prevent an edit going into an article for no sound reason. Mooretwin (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"Cabals of POV editors" is precisely the kind of emotive language I'm talking about. Is the edit "also known as..." POV? If not, how can its removal be the result of POV? If it is, then it should not be up there in the lead. Either way, you have yet to explain why it is so important to add this nugget of information, over the objections of several other editors, not all of whom have a POV axe to grind. What essential truth, in other words, is being withheld? That the participants were not loyal subjects of the Crown? Hardly! So what have you, or the WP community, to lose from just letting it go? Scolaire (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the edit "also know as ..." POV? No.

If not, how can its removal be the result of POV? It may not be - we don't know the reason for its removal for those removing it won't say. I suspect there must be some kind of unspoken POV perception, though, given that the editors objecting are all nationalist POV editors. I may be wrong, though, but let them explain.

Why it is so important to add this nugget of information? Because this is an encyclopaedia, and should therefore present the reader with important facts such as any alternative names for an event. That would be the same reason why there is already a page called Easter Rebellion which redirects here.

What essential truth, in other words, is being withheld? That the participants were not loyal subjects of the Crown? Hardly! I'm afraid I don't understand this comment.

So what have you, or the WP community, to lose from just letting it go? Readers of WP will miss out on acquiring important knowledge about the event. What do those who are afraid to include the alternative name have to lose by including it? Mooretwin (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"Readers of WP will miss out on acquiring important knowledge about the event." What is the knowledge, and what is the importance of it? The Rising was also known as the Easter Rebellion. True. But what is the importance of this fact? What extra knowledge is to be gained from including it? Is it that the participants were not loyal subjects of the Crown? If so, do you not think that the article as it stands makes that abundantly clear? That is what I was trying to say there. If it's not that, what is it? That's all I'm asking. Try to make it clear what exactly it is that is being "censored", and maybe then I will begin to understand why it matters. And again, why do you say "those who are afraid to include the alternative name"? I haven't seen any fear in any of the responses so far. Scolaire (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the importance of the fact that the Rising was also known as the Rebellion? The same importance of the fact of any other event having another name.

What extra knowledge is to be gained from including it? The extra knowledge of the alternative name.

Is it that the participants were not loyal subjects of the Crown? ??? I still don't understand what you are alluding to here.

And again, why do you say "those who are afraid to include the alternative name"? I haven't seen any fear in any of the responses so far. Then why do they seek to remove the name, without giving any reason? Mooretwin (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Come on, Mooretwin, what knowledge is to be gained by "the extra knowledge of the alternative name"? In what way is the knowledge useful? What is the point in giving readers this extra knowledge? How will the reader understand the Rising better with this extra knowledge? In short, what does this extra knowledge of the alternative name matter?? If you don't understand my question about loyalty to the Crown, then just forget about it - I was only trying to think of some conceivably useful knowledge other than "the extra knowledge of the alternative name" that the edit might provide. But it is progressively clearer from your answers that there is no, absolutely no, knowledge to be gleaned from the edit. Nobody "seeks to remove the name, without giving any reason." Editors are removing the name, giving coherent reasons. The fact that you respond to the reasons does not undo the fact that they have given reasons, nor does it automatically make those reasons wrong. Now, I'll ask you one more time, what essential truth is being withheld, and what have you, or the WP community, to lose from leaving that phrase out? Scolaire (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"we don't know the reason for its removal for those removing it won't say. I suspect there must be some kind of unspoken POV perception, though, given that the editors objecting are all nationalist POV editors." This reason seems perfectly clear and NPOV to me, even if you don't agree with it. Scolaire (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I already responded to that above - O Fenian's lack of access to sources such as Encyclopaedia Britannica is surely insufficient reason for excluding a name that is clearly sufficiently well-known to merit inclusion in one of the world's leading encyclopaediae (which lists is as the only alternative name). Mooretwin (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If it lists it as the only alternative name, then I'm not impressed with it as a "leading encyclopædia". The Rising has several alternative names, and I don't believe Easter Rebellion is even the most common - see the posts by Purple Arrow and myself below. Scolaire (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It was Mooretwin's reference to an unsigned BBC article on 'blood sacrifice', that was my objection. I think it was the British who shot the signatories. No need for argument and silly POV based in the lead, no matter whos POV is being peddled. Leads should be neutral, and merely introductory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purple Arrow (talk • contribs) 12:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Er, I put forward about five references, and the BBC one was in error. Further references have also been cited. Therefore your objection no longer stands. There is no POV in the lead: it is neutral; and it is introductory. Citing the alternative name for the event is not POV and it is introductory. Mooretwin (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I never stated that citing an alternate name is pov, I was talking about you peculiar reference, which was pov, and glad to see it is now removed. PurpleA (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It was removed almost as soon as it was erroneously added! Mooretwin (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Great! So can we get back to the main issue, please? Scolaire (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Alternate names are "Easter Week", "1916 Rising", "Rebellion of 1916". These are equally used, and a separate paragraph for these alternate names is of necessity in the article. PurpleA (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you add such a paragraph? Mooretwin (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• I can only suggest to make an extra paragraph, the fourth paragraph. It would probably be a 2 liner, at most. I have now, "1916 Rising", "1916", "Easter Week", "1916 Rebellion", "Rebellion of 1916", "Easter Rebellion", "1916 Uprising". There may be more alternate names that some other editors might think of, but that's all I can add at the moment. PurpleA (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to get into a discussion of alternative names, then I absolutely agree with you. I would even venture to suggest that "1916 Rising" is an even more common name than "Easter Rebellion". Even "1916", on its own, is a commonly encountered name. For instance, the leaders e.g. de Valera are often referred to as "1916 leader" and rarely as "leader of the Easter Rising", not to mention over 4,000 Google hits for "the men of 1916" and over 5,000 for "the men and women of 1916". Scolaire (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

To win independence from Britain by force of arms

The above phrase was recently deleted from the article for a second time (the first time was in November 2007). I'm not particularly upset about its removal, but I am curious about the reason given: Not necessarily by "force of arms". The Rising was the opening salvo to what might have led to further conflict, nobody knew what the future course would be at the time.[2] My question is this: there was any number of groups in Ireland at the time dedicated to gaining/regaining independence from Britain (and coming under the broad heading of Sinn Féin, which was not used exclusively for Arthur Griffith's organisation); was not the one thing that distinguised Clarke, MacDermott and co. the fact that they planned to do it "by force of arms"? In other words, was an armed uprising/insurrection/rebellion not the immediate means by which independence would eventually be won? As I say, I'm not fighting to have that phrase re-included, I'm just trying to understand the logic. Scolaire (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion in the opening paragraph is debatable. Obviously "1916" was a 'force of arms', but the signatories did not know at the time where 1916 would lead to, if anywhere. That's why opening paragraphs should remain pretty neutral in describing situations and their events. Let the rest of the article deal with the detail. PurpleA (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The signatories did not know at the time where 1916 would lead to, if anywhere? In 1915, Plunkett with Casement in Germany were guaranteed a place at any future peace talk at the conclusion of the war as a belligerent nation. Germany lost the war, and the republican delegations were not granted a place at the peace talks. To suggest that they "did not know at the time where 1916 would lead to" is pure nonsense. What was the first war supposed to be all about? The rights of small nations, little Belgium, and here we have Ireland a small nation demanding independence, in arms. The signatories did not know at the time where 1916 would lead to, if anywhere, do you know how silly that sounds? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

"In 1915, Plunkett with Casement in Germany were guaranteed a place at any future peace talk at the conclusion of the war as a belligerent nation.". I think you prove my point, for where were Plunkett and Casement at the conclusion of the war? On the other hand, the signatories may not have been executed, and negotiations for the re-establishment of Irelands' independence may have got under way. Also, you are taking my input out of context to what should be included or excluded from the opening paragraphs. "1916" was not "The War of Independence", and the two, though connected are not the same event/s. PurpleA (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm missing where it matters that "the signatories did not know at the time where 1916 would lead to." Nobody ever knows what the course of anything will be. Time does not run backwards. What they intended was to win independence from Britain. The means by which they were to do it was an armed uprising. Hence, to win independence from Britain by force of arms. Or are you suggesting that they intended to win independence by means of a coffee morning, and the seizing of Dublin happened by accident? Scolaire (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"I'm missing where it matters that "the signatories did not know at the time where 1916 would lead to." ". Then why are yourself and Domer48 making the fuss. I think the independence part did end with "tea and cakes" in Downing Street, and Northern Ireland being born, didn't it? PurpleA (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that whole post makes no sense to me! Never mind. As you say, it's not worth making a fuss over, since the sentence has been altered anyway. Thanks for trying to explain, at least. Scolaire (talk) 07:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand that my input is somewhat inconspicuous, but anyway, let's move on, thanks for the interest. PurpleA (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Causes of the Rising

Should we make a list of the causes of the Rising? e.g. United Irishmen rising, famine leading to clan na gael, etc.

Would you be talking of additional information in the "Background" section? --Domer48_'fenian' 15:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"Sinn Féiners"?

• General Maxwell quickly signalled his intention “to arrest all dangerous Sinn Feiners,” including “those who have taken an active part in the movement although not in the present rebellion,”] reflecting the popular belief that Sinn Féin, a separatist organisation that was neither militant nor republican, was behind the Rising.

While the second part of the sentence is currently unsourced with regard to the popular belief that Sinn Féin was behind the Rising, it easily can be. However I believe this is a mistake made by numerous authors who have actually overlooked the language of the time. In Ó Broin's "Dublin Castle and the 1916 Rising" this is dealt with. A report written by Matthew Nathan in October 1914 refers to the "Sinn Féin Volunteers", and on the same page Ó Broin goes on to say "..and the Irish Volunteers under the presidency of "Eoin MacNeill who were known increasingly to the British and others as Sinn Féiners although the appellation was not entirely accurate". So approximately 18 months before the Rising the Volunteers were being referred to as "Sinn Féiners", and therefore it follows that references to "Sinn Féiners" after the Rising do not necessarily mean that Sinn Féin were being the Rising, merely that people continued to incorrectly use the term. Does anyone else agree? O Fenian (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have an opinion at all then? O Fenian (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I've been going to edit it based on Ó Broin's book for about a year now, but I never got around to it. See also Brian Feeney, Sinn Féin: a hundred turbulent years, page 20 [3] for the use of the phrase to describe advanced nationalism in general, rather than Griffith's organisation. Plus I've read somewhere - but I can't remember where - that the IV was generally known as the "Sinn Féin Volunteers" (the only ref I can find in Google Books is in Spanish [4]) In other words, the use of the term was not actually wrong, it was just different to the way we would use it today. Scolaire (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This seems to fit the bill? So what do you propose to do? Perhaps modify the wording probably losing the second part of the sentence and replace it with an explanation about how "Sinn Féiners" was a term used to describe the Volunteers and others prior to the Rising? Or perhaps introduce both terms at the time of the Redmond split in the Volunteers, ready for later use? O Fenian (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The second option sounds exactly right to me. The point can then be reiterated in the Maxwell paragraph. Scolaire (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Advance notice of proposed rewrite

Since I'm planning on basically scrapping this and writing it from scratch, I thought I'd make an extensive change. As the geography of the locations is somewhat confusing to anyone that isn't familiar with Dublin (and you can't expect people to look at the map every 10 seconds), I thought rather than deal with things chronologically and constantly swap between rebel positions, I'd do what Foy and Barton do, ie have a sub-section that deals with each rebel position individually, and obviously after each position has been dealt with then deal with the surrender of rebel forces in the next section. So as this is a fairly substantial change, are there any objections to this before I start? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back, 2 lines! First thoughts: I've already got the 'background' and 'planning' sections rewritten since last year, but on paper, not on computer. I'd like to get it keyed in and offer it for your consideration and maybe save you doing that from scratch. As for the week itself, it was always my intention to rewrite that, and to do it chronologically, but I never got past Monday evening so I can hardly complain if somebody else comes in a year later and does it differently. I'm also aware that 'Monday' was far too long as I wrote it, and needed some drastic weeding. I do feel that with the 'Foy and Barton' approach the reader loses the sense of Lowe's strategy of cordoning off and reducing the rebel positions, and the effect of their increasing isolation on the leaders in the GPO in particular. Having said that, anything has to be better than what's there now. The best of luck to you. Scolaire (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If when you say "scrapping this and writing it from scratch" you mean the entire article and not just the section on the fighting itself, I would be hesitant to do so, especially without specifying substantial flaws with the article as it stands. I see your point about the confusing geography, but if general compass directions are specified in relation to the center of the city, one doesn't need a comprehensive map of Dublin in their head to get the idea that the Four Courts are to the west and so on. I have no strong objections to the specific changed you propose, though I can't say anything for certain until I see exactly what it entails. By the way, what's with the new moniker? -R. fiend (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Any help at all you need give us a shout. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've begun keying in those sections. They're at User:Scolaire/Easter Rising. --Scolaire (talk) 06:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of any "no, don't do that!" I'm doing my edit to the article now. You can edit it ruthlessly or replace it completely when you do your rewrite. I'm adding a new section heading to separate the "planning" phase from the events immediately preceding Easter Monday. I'm also adding pics of Clarke and MacDermott per the Images section above. Scolaire (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, note the "Sinn Féiners"? section above. I had dealt with the Sinn Féin Volunteers in my first draft but I struck it out because the sentence was too awkward, and now I'm not sure how to put it back. Scolaire (talk) 07:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Scolaire brings up a good point I hadn't thought of much, but I can see it would cause me problems when writing. I believe both methods have their pros and cons, and think the best way to deal with it is a best of both worlds approach. Easter Monday is always going to be a huge section, so that can be mostly split down into sections by position, then go forward chronologically?

When I say scrap the existing article, generally when I improve an article I fix what's there up to my required standard first, then add any missing information. However with this article I think that would be a far more time consuming process than writing from scratch. For example this section drones on and on for paragraphs on end about the public reaction to the rebels after they had surrendered, instead of a succinct summary of the reaction. It's far easier to start from scratch than to fix that! What in the existing article is so good that it must be kept as it is and not changed? The background section and planning Scolaire is dealing with (and you raised no objections there!), the Rising sections are quite underwhelming, the Aftermath section is in dire need of a chainsaw to the immediate public reaction and the expansion of things covered in superficial detail, the Legacy section is missing key points and so on. This isn't going to be a half-baked job - I'm going to be working from Townshend, Foy/Barton, Coogan, Ó Broin, Jeffrey, Kostick/Collins, Caulfield, Hegarty/O'Toole, O'Donnell, and various information from other books. But when I've finished I'll be sure to compare against the existing article to see if there's anything relevant I've missed, so what's the problem?

The new background section is better, but I'm sure I'll find room for improvement. For example I know what the tension surrounding the UVF was, you know what the tension surrounding the UVF was, but the average reader new to the topic will be wondering what tension you are talking about! To be honest the whole long drawn out Home Rule Bill saga was the section I was least looking forward to dealing with, so it's much appreciated.

In Jeffrey's book Arthur Norway provides an interesting quote dealing with what he was told by a member of the Castle administration whose name escapes me at this moment - "He told me, however, that the term Sinn Féin denoted every shade of Nationalism, from innocent enthusiasts for Gaelic literature and Gaelic sports at one end to red-hot Fenians at the other; so that to call a man a Sinn Féiner established nothing about him, until one knew to which section of Sinn Féin he belonged." What I really need though is a source that basically ties together the use of the term Sinn Féiner to describe any Irish nationalist with Sinn Féin incorrectly being blamed for the Rising. I can source both separately from many sources, but annoyingly no source seems to combine the two to explain the error. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally have no problem with rewriting the Aftermath section from scratch; it is sort of a rambling mess with the hallmarks of having several independent authors. I do have one issue with the new background section, and that is that it currently states that the IRB formed the Volunteers. While no one denies that the IRB certainly played a hand in its formation, the degree of their involvement is quite a vexed question. We've been over this many times before, and I don't want to have to go over it all again, but it's generally accepted that the three major players behind the formation of the Volunteers were MacNeill, Hobson, and O'Rahilly, only one of whom was an IRB member. Regardless of the actual role played by the IRB as an organization (which will probably never be settled), the current phrasing is to me unacceptable because it seems to imply that the Volunteers were just a branch of the IRB, which they most certainly were not, and even that MacNeill was an IRB member. To understand the Rising, one has to understand the significant differences between those organizations, and their different motives and aims. The uninformed reader will, after reading that, undoubtedly lump the two organizations together and think of them basically as one, which is a great way to misunderstand everything that follows.

This brings me to another point, which is about the article as it currently stands as well as about some of the rewriting. I'm a bit concerned that we're throwing too many names, places, organizations, etc. at the readers, most of which aren't going to mean much to most people, and this threaten the readability of the article. To those of us who are very familiar with everything it seems fine, but I know from reading other articles on subjects I know little about that when you're confronted with a barrage of unfamiliar proper nouns it can make it very difficult to follow and keep track of who's who and what's what. It's hard for me to evaluate that aspect of the article, as it's difficult to divorce myself from my familiarity with the subject, so I think at some point we should have an uninvolved party with no prior knowledge of the rising evaluate how easy it is to follow. This is an encyclopedia, and our target audience is the casual, uninformed reader, and we shouldn't lose sight of that. This might at some point mean we'll have to sacrifice some details in order for the sake of clarity, but that can be discussed later. -R. fiend (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The MacNeill information does need changing, it was one of the first things I noticed. However as I've already said I'd be working on Scolaire's section I don't really see why you're going on about it so much. But...if you're going to continue to argue that the IRB didn't found the Volunteers despite the plethora of sources saying they did, then I can't see you being much help to anyone on this page. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Amen to that!--Domer48_'fenian' 13:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

To say any one person or organization "formed" the Volunteers would be a major oversimplification. That, however, is out of the scope of this article, and is addressed quite well in the Irish Volunteers article. Obviously the IRB played an enormous role, but by not making clear the differences between the Volunteers and the IRB, it does a great disservice to the reader. From reading the article, one would likely think the Volunteers were an arm of the IRB, which is certainly not the case; they were separate organizations with separate leadership, and despite its efforts the IRB never managed to fully control the Volunteers. I think it is paramount that the article clearly explain what each organization was; there are certain things that in which we can leave it up to the reader to click the hyperlink for more information, but these two groups are far too important not to be explained in at least a little detail. You can't really understand the Rising if you don't know that the IRB was a small oath-bound non-military secret society whose goal was to establish an Irish Republic by any means, and the Irish Volunteers were a large para-military organization whose stated goal was to defend the rights of Irishmen and to ensure the implementation of Home Rule. So far such information is not included, and something to this affect needs to be in the article, as it is much more important to the understanding of the Rising than where each division assembled or exactly why the first two Home Rule bills failed. That is what I feel needs to be addressed; I don't want to reopen the old discussion about trying to pinpoint the one specific founder of the Volunteers, as if such an individual exists. -R. fiend (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"But by the autumn of 1913 a growing sense of unease was developing within nationalist Ireland along with the feeling that an equivalent of the Ulster Volunteer Force should be created. Hobson was determined that such a mass organisation should be established, but he knew well it would be shunned by the public were the fact to become public knowledge that it had emerged as a result of an initiative by the IRB. Republicans needed a respectable figure as a public front that would conceal the reality of deep penetration and control by Hobson and his associates. He found an ideal candidate in Eoin MacNeill..." Thus Foy and Barton, citing Hobson's Ireland: Yesterday and Tomorrow, p. 43. They deal with O'Rahilly's involvement further down the page: "Hobson prompted MacNeill's publisher, Michael O'Rahilly, to encourage the professor to form an Irish Volunteer Force. While MacNeill was unaware of the detailed background machinations that made him the focus of so much attention, he knew Hobson's general political leanings and the purpose for which he had been chosen. He was determined not to be a puppet but to lead a movement that embraced the full spectrum of Irish nationalism. Accordingly he agreed to O'Rahilly's proposal and Hobson drew up the list of a Provisional Committee..." So it was Hobson's (i.e. the IRB's) initiative and Hobson's committee, although MacNeill had a different view of it. Possibly the best way of addressing your concerns is to say something like, "The Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB) took advantage of the resulting tensions to form its own organisation, and on 25 November 1913, the Irish Volunteers, whose stated goal was to defend the rights of Irishmen and to ensure the implementation of Home Rule, was formed with Eoin MacNeill as leader." In the next section I have talked about Pearse, Plunkett et al. having a rôle in both the IRB and the Volunteers, so there ought not to be any confusion about the fact that they were separate organisations. 2 lines, when you say "The MacNeill information does need changing", what way does it need to be changed? I don't have any problem with changing it now, or with you changing it later. Scolaire (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I think I see, actually. It's the suggestion that MacNeill was IRB. Then how about "the Irish Volunteers...was formed. It's leader was Eoin MacNeill, who was not an IRB member." Scolaire (talk) 10:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That seems pretty good to me, I think. As I said, my main point is that the what exactly the IRB and the Volunteers were should be explicitly stated. If it isn't very clear to the reader that they were two quite different organizations with different goals then all the talk of trying to win MacNeill over or trick him doesn't really make much sense. -R. fiend (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not getting involved in any further discussion about content which I may or may not be planning to change, or content that I have not even written yet. As there have been no objections to my second slightly amended proposal for changing the article structure during my rewrite, I am now going to crack on. If you would like to discuss anything when I have finished, you are welcome to do so. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Away you go. Happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

While I think Scolaire's recent clarifications are an improvement I still think the paragraph needs some work. First of all, stating that the IRB formed "their own" organisation still makes it sound like the Volunteers were an armed branch of the IRB. They were not "their organisation"; they were an entirely separate group with overlapping membership and different aims. Furthermore, saying "to secure and to maintain the rights and liberties common to all the people of Ireland", while certainly the stated goal of the IV, is incredibly vague. Something really needs to be said about how their primary specific purpose was to ensure the implementation of Home Rule. I can go ahead and make these changes myself, but I thought I'd discuss them here first. -R. fiend (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked for a source that said their primary specific purpose was to ensure the implementation of Home Rule, though admittedly not that hard. I didn't find one. Both Townshend and Foy & Barton used that quote, "to secure and to maintain the rights and liberties common to all the people of Ireland", so they mustn't have found it incredibly vague. I can see you feel strongly about this, but we made the decision a long time ago not to go down the OR route, so whatever is written will have to conform with what I think we all agree are the authoritative works on the subject. I believe that what I have written does. If you can find an alternative that also does then fair enough. One thing, though: please let us not blow the section back up to its previous size with a whole lot of "on the one hand...on the other hand" stuff. Whatever needs to be said should be sayable in one concise sentence. Scolaire (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll look for a source when I have a chance; I'm sure it won't be too hard to find. I'm pretty sure just about every book on the subject addresses the fact that the Volunteers were formed to pressure the government to grant home rule, just as the Ulster Volunteers were formed to pressure them not to. The "rights and liberties" quote was their official succinct summation of their aim, so it's not surprising that it's oft quoted (as it should be) but it is very vague, and while it would have been clear to their contemporaries that they were largely talking about Home Rule, it is less clear to a reader today. I'll try to look into it tomorrow. -R. fiend (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made another edit that ought to make it crystal clear that the IV was not the same thing as the IRB. It's more long-winded than I would have liked but so be it. Let's not have any edits suggesting that it was the same thing as the Home Rule Party, at least while that's under discussion at Talk:Irish Volunteers. --Scolaire (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, and not too long-winded. I don't think anyone is arguing that the IV is the same as the Home Rule Party, so we needn't worry about that. I still don't like the phrasing that the IRB formed their own organization, as it gives the IRB all the credit at the expense of the other people involved, and "their own" makes it sound like they had ownership of it. Your new addition seems go a way towards dispelling that misconception, but I still think it needn't be phrased that way in the first place. -R. fiend (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sinn Féin Volunteers and Sinn Féin Rising

The reference was under my nose the whole time! I was sure I had read it but I couldn't remember where. It's in Brian Feeney, Sinn Féin: A Hundred Turbulent Years. On pages 55-56, talking about the split in 1914, he says, "People immediately began to call the breakaway group the 'Sinn Féin' Volunteers." On p. 56 he continues, "For some years the description 'Sinn Féin' had been reserved as...a generic term for any person or organisation that espoused extreme nationalist views or expressed anti-English sentiments." Later the same page: "many people...would have found it difficult to distinguish the public uttereances and actions of prominent Sinn Féiners from those of the leaders of the new Irish Volunteers." On pp. 56-7: "The identity of outlook was reinforced by the way the Irish Volunteers' membership overlapped with the IRB, Sinn Féin, the Gaelic League and other Irish Ireland-type clubs." He concludes (p. 57): "Since in both popular and official minsets the Irish Volunteers were 'the Sinn Féin Volunteers', and since there was nothing to distinguish the published positions of the two organisations on the war, the Easter Rising in April 1916 was immediately called the 'Sinn Féin Rising'. The Irish Times mentioned 'the Sinn Féin insurrection' as early as 28 April, the day before the Volunteers surrendered. Asquith referred to them as 'Sinn Féiners' on 3 May. That can only be because the advisors he was listening to were also describing them in that way." Not "erroneously called", then, or the Sinn Féin organisation being "blamed". It was called the Sinn Féin Rising for good and valid reasons. Scolaire (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "good and valid reasons". Obviously Sinn Fein had nothing to do with it officially, other than, as your source says, the post-split volunteers and Sinn Fein the party had overlapping memberships, and people used the term "Sinn Fein" or "Sinn Feiners" to describe anyone who held particular political views regardless of connection with the organization of that name. I'm not sure what is meant by "official" mindsets, but it seems anyone who used the term "Sinn Fein" to refer to the Volunteers was erroneously calling them that, whether out of ignorance or whether they just used it as an umbrella term, knowing it was technically a different organization. I think, given the widespread use of the (erroneous) term, it was called the Sinn Fein Rising for understandable reasons, I'm not convinced they are good and valid. -R. fiend (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the point is that Sinn Féin was an umbrella term before it was the name of an organisation (see "Sinn Féiners" section above). No matter, "good and valid reasons" is only my opinion anyway. The facts and the sources are there for One Night in Hackney - or somebody else - to use in the article as they see fit. Scolaire (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you're saying now. It's hard to tell from the context what period is being referred to when the author says "For some years the description 'Sinn Féin' had been reserved as...a generic term for any person or organisation that espoused extreme nationalist views or expressed anti-English sentiments." I thought Griffith's organization spawned the generic use of the term, not vice versa. Interesting. I had not heard that before. -R. fiend (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In 1916 Mrs. Hamilton Norway, the wife of the secretary for the post office in Ireland, wrote a book titled The Sinn Fein Rebellion as I saw it in which the Volunteers are described as the Sinn Feiners. L. G. Redmond-Howard nephew of John Redmond in his book also published in 1916 titled Six Days of the Irish Republic also uses the term. Again published in 1916 was John F. Boyle's The Irish Rebellion of 1916 uses both Sinn Feiners and Sinn Fein Volunteers. Warre B. Wells and N. Marlow in their History of the Irish Rebellion of 1916, again published in 1916 does address the wrong attribution of the Sinn Feiners to the Volunteers. In Sylvain Briollay's Ireland in Rebellion published in 1922 notes how the Insurrection was wrongly attributed to Sinn Fein, suggesting as a possible reason being that "the Redmondites thought it wise to disclaim all connection with this movement, the revolutionary tone of which frightened their modesty as successful, respectable people, and to saddle those scurvy Sinn Feiners with the responsibility for it." However the most detailed book on the evolution of the Sinn Féin policy and then party is P. S. O'Hegarty's Sinn Féin an Illumination first published in 1919. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

IRB reverts

Since I can't seem to find it, can some point out to me exactly where in Foy and Barton it says that the IRB founded its own organization in the Irish Volunteers? Please quote the relevant passage, because I don't see it. The Volunteers article quite rightly says that it was formed by Irish nationalists, with the IRB playing a large role. I think this quite accurately sums up the situation, and I don't see why this article should stray from that point and try to make the case that it was solely the IRB. Kee, for instance, says "The mass rank and file supporters of the Irish Parliamentary Party...had already by that date joined with Griffith and other even more extreme national elements to form an organisation which expressed alarm about the fate of the Home Rule Bill and a determination to stand fast in the face of further pressure for concessions...It was called the Irish National Volunteers and was formally founded in Dublin on 25 November 1913 as an organization quite unconnected with the Parliamentary Party as such, though party supporters joined it." No mention of the IRB at all, although it is pretty clear they are alluded to with the talk of "more extreme national elements". P.S. O'Hegarty, an IRB man himself, says "The credit for the formation of the Irish Volunteers belongs to Eoin MacNeill" (p.672, according to Tierney). That Irish nationalists, many of them IRB members, founded the Volunteers is a statement everyone can agree on. That the IRB started it themselves, and "owned" it in any sense of the word, is a highly contested point. Why is the latter being consistently reinstated in the article? -R. fiend (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The relevant passages are: "Hobson recalled that 'in the IRB we knew that Carson had opened a door that could not easily be closed again' and Tom Clarke always rubbed his hands with glee whenever he spoke of the UVF", "Hobson was determined that such a mass organisation should be established, but knew well that it would be shunned by many were the fact to become public knowledge that it had emerged as a result of an initiative by the IRB. Republicans needed a respectable figure as a public front...He found the ideal candidate in Eoin MacNeill" and on the following page, "accordingly [MacNeill] agreed to O'Rahilly's proposal and Hobson drew up the list of a Provisional Committee..." Not a mention of the Irish Parliamentary Pary at all! Robert Kee is a journalist, not a historian, and uses journalistic language in preference to strict historical accuracy. He should not be preferred to Foy and Barton. I would probably not have reverted your (second) edit, but I can well understand why it was reverted. I will tweak the sentence yet again to bring it into closer conformity with the cited source, but any suggestion that the IRB was just one of a number of organisations that spontaneously came together to form the Volunteers will need a much better authority than those so far provided. Scolaire (talk) 07:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to get involved in this, but since it affects what I'll be writing I suppose I'll have to. Kee does not contradict any sources that say the IRB were behind the foundation of the Volunteers. Given his mention of Griffith who wasn't involved in the foundation but did join at the start, he seems to be talking about who was at the initial meeting. Unless he explicitly says the IRB were not behind the formation, his omission of who was behind it cannot be used as evidence they weren't. The argument that the IRB and Volunteers had different goals is the biggest red herring I have ever seen. The Volunteers were a front organisation, Hobson didn't even attend the formation meeting as the IRB didn't want the IRB associated with the Volunteers for fear of scaring away more moderate nationalists. If you have a front organisation that you are planning to secretly control and subvert for your own ends at a later date, it stands to reason that the overt goals of the two organisations will not be the same, otherwise the front organisation ceases to be a front. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it's good to see an honest to god discussion about a topic such as this; I'd almost forgotten what it's like. In any case, saying the IRB were behind the creation of the Volunteers is not the same as saying they started the IV as an organization of their own. I think we all agree that the IRB basically got the ball rolling, but the point that should not be missed is that the IRB couldn't form such an organization on their own. They needed a MacNeill, for two reasons. First of all, if someone like like Tom Clarke had tried to form a paramilitary organization the Castle would have kicked down his door and shot him in the face [exaggeration], while just as important, no one in the IRB had the clout to start such a group and draw widespread support and interest. Indeed, there is evidence some such people tried, and a group called the "Midland Volunteer Force" was formed in Athlone, but absent any respected public figure to give them credibility, they never took off as the Irish Volunteers would.

Nevertheless, to say The Volunteers were a front for the IRB is misleading, at best. Surely that is what they would have liked, but it is not how things worked out. True fronts are run by a clandestine organization, who control it, often with the use of a figurehead puppet. Restaurants run by the mob are prime examples. The clean guys they put "in charge" of the business have no say in what they do. This is not true of the IRB and the Volunteers. Foy and Barton make it clear that MacNeill was not going to be a yes-man for the IRB, though he knew well that they had their hands in the planning from the beginning. If it were a true front, the IRB would never have let Redmond get his paws on the Volunteers, and, come Easter 1916, they would have said to MacNeill "we're staging an insurrection, sign this mobilization order," which he would have then done. The events of Holy Week tell a very different story.

I don't honestly know just how much the IRB expected MacNeill to roll over for them, but if they wanted to completely run the show, they let him and many other unsympathetic parties (including members of the IPP) have too much real power. And from the beginning, much of the planning was made by other parties, notably O'Rahilly, and it took a good deal of recruitment of prominent Volunteers to eventually get as far as they did. In any case, I think the current phrasing is a substantial improvement. -R. fiend (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Some slight changes

I have changed "exploitation" or Ireland by England as "what they saw as exploitation." Given that what we think is based on what we see, it makes little difference, but it doesn't imply such a clear cut case as the original sentence. Not major changes, but I thought I would list them here seeing as how debated the Irish nationalist topics are on Wiki these days :) SGGH ^ping! 11:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There also doesn't seem to me a mention of the changes in the Irish Volunteers due to the decision by some to aid Britain in WWI, dividing into National and Irish volunteers. I made have missed it. SGGH ^ping! 11:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for self-reverting the 'generic term' edit :-) The split is mentioned early in the following section: "The Irish Volunteers, the smaller of the two forces resulting from the September 1914 split over support for the British war effort..." Ideally I would like to keep those two sections as concise as possible. Once you start expanding they quickly grow out of all proportion to the rest of the article, as has happened in the past. Scolaire (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Most significant since 1798

There were attempts at uprisings in 1803, 1848, 1867 etc. They were not major uprisings. The 1916 Rising was the most significant since 1798. This is self-evident, it is well-known, it is uncontroversial. But we can't cite a "reliable source" that says this in so many words. So where do we go from here? Scolaire (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. O Fenian (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Belligerents

The following comments, I've copied form above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Army of the Irish Republic, comprising:

Irish Volunteers

Irish Citizen Army

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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