Talk:Easter Rising/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 ISBN's for bibliography 2 Cleanup tag 3 Rm Boer paragraph? 4 US reaction to the Rising 5 Added image of military forces 6 Disputed comment 7 James Connolly & The Citizen Army 8 Opening paragraph 9 The Proclamation and the infobox 10 Opening paragraph (continued) 11 Infobox 12 Irish Republicanism infobox 13 Contradiction about partition? 14 militant? 15 Rebellion outside Dublin

ISBN's for bibliography

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

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

Cleanup tag

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

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

Rm Boer paragraph?

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

US reaction to the Rising

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

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

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

Added image of military forces

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

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

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

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

Should Trinity College be named?

Scolaire 19:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Disputed comment

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

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

Scolaire 22:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

James Connolly & The Citizen Army

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

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

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

Opening paragraph

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

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

The date, April 24th, appears twice

That it was against British rule is stated twice

That it was staged by republicans is stated three times

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

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

Scolaire 16:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The Proclamation and the infobox

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

Opening paragraph (continued)

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

Infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Irish Republicanism infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contradiction about partition?

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

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

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

militant?

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

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

Rebellion outside Dublin

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

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.