Talk:Easter Rising

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Easter Rising article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Easter Rising as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Serbo-Croatian language Wikipedia.


Contents

[edit] broken link

the link to the essay is broken, I'm pretty sure this :http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/easterrising/personal/ is where it is now 139.168.142.218 21:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit of intro

Quote: "Despite its military failure, some judge it as being a significant stepping-stone towards Irish independence. Some consider the facts that the Third Home Rule Act had already been passed in 1914 and that the Irish Parliamentary Party already had an overwhelming dominant electoral position in most of Ireland as evidence that Irish home rule was inevitable and the Rising was a stepping-stone towards ensuring that it was preceeded by extensive violence."

Does anybody else feel like me that this is POV masquerading as NPOV? Firstly, the Home Rule Act and the IPP are dealt with in the very next paragraph, and the what-ifs are dealt with ad nauseam later on; secondly, the original paragraph said that the Rising was a stepping-stone toward the Irish Republic, not towards independence — the Home Rule Act would never have led to the establishment of a republic; and most importantly, the whole drift of the edit is that the 1916 leaders knew that independence was inevitable, and just wanted to make sure that there was "extensive violence" first.
I propose to revert this edit unless someone gives me a compelling reason not to.
Scolaire 09:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Revert away, if you haven't already. -R. fiend 13:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"This indignation led to a radical shift in public perception of the Rising and within three years of its failure, the separatist Sinn Féin party won an overwhelming majority in a general election, supporting the creation of an Irish Republic and endorsing the actions of the 1916 rebels".

This is an unclear statement Sinn Fein won a majority of Westminister seats under the first past the post system, however Sinn Fein did not gain the support of the majority of Irish voters.

--Boz 12:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Execution of all leaders"

I changed the entry in the result section from "execution of all leaders" with a note about de Valera being the exception, to simply "execution of leaders", without the note on Dev. Defining "leader" can be tricky. Certainly Dev was the highest ranking officer not to be executed (with the possible exeception of The O'Rahilly, who died in the fighting), but if you're going to say he was a leader because he was a battalion commandant, then we might have to call some other unexecuted officers leaders as well (such as Cathal Brugha, perhaps). That's the problem with overuse of infoboxes, they don't leave room for any complexity; things can't always be summed up accurately in a few words. Also, to say it was solely Dev's ties to the US that saved him is perhaps a bit controversial. -R. fiend 14:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Some would say that the principal leaders were those who signed the proclamation?86.42.197.249 10:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure, in which case the statement about de Valera being the exception is untrue, as he was not a signatory. -R. fiend 15:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infiltrating Sinn Féin etc

A large part of this article does not deal with the Easter rising at all. I think this is probably due to the history of the article - what began as a couple of short sentences became relatively lengthy sections. However, I think the time has come to replace these sections with a more pertinent discussion of the aftermath and legacy of the Rising. Scolaire 08:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree and think it has slipped from a B rating. Very little on the deal(s) with the Germans (the Aud didn't just turn up), nor on Pearse's idea of a healthy blood sacrifice (are we too PC to admit that today?), nor on the involvement of poets like Desmond Fitzgerald, nor on other revolts in WWI such as the Arab Revolt sponsored by the British at the same time. Did no-one in 1916 see the contradiction of support from both imperial Germany and Irish socialists?86.42.197.249 10:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From the authorities' point of view?

"From the authorities' point of view, given the circumstances of the time and the nature of the offences, it is difficult to see that there was any other appropriate punishment. Britain was fighting a war on an unprecedented scale, a war in which many thousands of Irish volunteers in the British forces had already lost their lives." This sounds more like an opinion, at least the way it is written now. Is it at all possible to perhaps get some source on this, and reference it as being the position held by one or more of the British individuals involved? Or perhaps this section might be changed to read: "Although most historians agree that the decision to execute the suspected leaders backfired, it is unsurprising that they chose to do so given the circumstances of the time and the nature of the offenses. Britain was fighting a war on an unprecedented scale, a war in which many thousands of Irish volunteers in the British forces had already lost their lives..." To me, this sounds like more of a description of the authorities' thought processes, and less an opinion about what should have been done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.190.203 (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. And in the absence of any citations, its probably OR as well. Scolaire 06:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

  • the stuff afterwards about how the Irish population was initially completely opposed to the rising and then suddenly became Republican after the executions afterwards is a bit of a hackneyed truism as well. Obviously the republican minded proportion of the population weren't particularly vocal in the immediate aftermath, but there wasn't a mass road to Damascus-like experience of the executions and internment - the sentiment was already there for the most part. Obviously this all needs evidence, which I will try and pull out if I've got the time, hence why I'm writing this on the talk page rather than the article. Andehandehandeh 11:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IRB and the Volunteers

The rising was not a coup de main by the IRB on the Volunteers. The IRB and been involved in the establishment of the Volunteers from the start. Please provide sources which dispute this. --Domer48 (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Some eople who were involved in the establishment of the Volunteers were also members of the IRB. This is not the same as being established by the IRB> Of the 10 people at the inaugural meeting, only half were IRB members. Of the 30 on the original Provisional committee, only 12 were (though a few others later joined, such as Pearse). R. fiend (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The IRB knew from before their formation what they planned to do with the Volunteers! --Domer48 (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"...the hidden hand behind both the formation of the Irish Voulnteers in 1913 and the planning of the Rising..." Now it is this statement which has to be addressed. You need a source which disputes the reference. --Domer48 (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the latter part is certainly true, but the former is a pretty general and unspecific statement. The IRB was involved with the Volunteers from the beginning. I don't dispute, but the statement that the IRB created the Volunteers in simply false. You are correct in that they knew what they planned to do from their inception (and before, as much as one can have plans for an as-of-yet non-existent organization), but that is not the same as being the creation of the IRB, which is what the article now states.
Also note that Hobson was on the Supreme Council of the IRB (until he resigned in 1914) and was on the Provisional Committee of the Volunteers (one of the only to hold both positions), and was involved in the formation of the Volunteers from the earliest stages, so he is about as good a source as one can hope for. -R. fiend (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The pretence for establishing the Volunteers was in responce to the establishment of the UVF. Who prompted O'Neill to establish the Volunteers? The IRB. O'Neill was a respectable figure head, a cover if you will, or to be blunt, a patsy. The IRB from its inception had only to wait for the oppertunity, and long before the start of the war, they knew it was coming. This is not my opinion, so if I have to reference this let me know? --Domer48 (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  • "The IRB seized its chance to capitalise on this sense of identity when Eoin MacNeill, vice-president of the Gaelic League, wrote an article in the organ of the Gaelic League, An Cliadheamh Soluis, in October 1913, proposing that a body of Southern Volunteers be established on the same line as the Ulster Volunteers. Using the respected name of MacNeill as a front, the IRB organised a meeting to which all parties were invited, at the Rotunda Hall, Dublin, on November 25." (The IRA, Tim Pat Coogan, 1970, page 33)
I would certainly read from that that the IRB were behind the formation of the Volunteers, and that MacNeill was a figurehead. Scolaire (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that Scolaire (talk). Tim Pat Coogan in 1916: The Easter Rising, even suggests that the article he wrote may have been prompted by them as well. --Domer48 (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Planning the Rising

I have placed some of the text in the form of a footnote. I did this for two reasons, the first being that it is not relevant to the planning of the Rising, the other being it is unreferenced, and liable to be removed. The material I added, is very relevant and must have been omitted. Unfortunately there are a number of red links. All I can suggest is we remove the links, or if editors are knowledgeable try to establish the links. --Domer48 (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of footnotes, there are currently nine references to page 67 of Eoin Neeson. I think it would be better if the details of the publication were moved to the Bibliography section and the references changed to "Neeson, page 67" or the appropriate page if different. Scolaire (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that Scolaire (talk) will fix it now. --Domer48 (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Scolaire (talk) this is the only way I know how to reference, do you have a link to other formatts? --Domer48 (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the only way to do it is to type "<ref>Neeson, page 67</ref>" etc. for each of the refs, instead of the "name=Neeson" format that you're currently using. See Free Derry where I've cited Eamonn McCann and others many times, with the book details down in the Bibliography section. Scolaire (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ye had a look, it just seems a bit messy. The thing is though most if not all of these books have an index at the back of the book. Which are very easy to use. I don't know to be honest which is best? --Domer48 (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Messy, yes, but it's the way WP likes it. See also Provisional IRA campaign 1969–1997‎ (something I had no part in). A good citation takes you not just to the book but to the page, so that the information is there at your fingertips. Also, to be honest, Eoin Neesonabcdefghi just looks funny. Scolaire (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ye I suppose your right. Just thinking of the amount of articles I have edited. Ah well one at a time I suppose. Thanks, --Domer48 (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creation of the Volunteers question

I think the footnoted section is significant enough to appear in the text. If sources are an issue, it's a pretty well established fact, and any one of a number of texts can be cited.

As for the other issue, I still maintain it is incorrect to say that the Volunteers were the creation of the IRB. They had a hand in its creation (or at least its members did, which is not necessarily the same thing), but they, as an organization, did not form the Volunteers. Bulmer Hobson was instrumental in planing the first meeting to discuss formation of the Volunteers at Wynn's Hotel on 11 November, 1913, but he was not acting on behalf of the IRB, and he himself did not attend the meeting as he was considered too radical and was worried about driving away more moderate voices. MacNeill was chairman, and certainly more than a figurehead leader. IRB members were a minority on the Provisional Committee until the reorganization of the Volunteers following the split with Redmond the following year.

You say that the IRB prompted MacNeill to form the Volunteers after publication his article The North Began. What is your specific source on that? The single metaphorical sentence about "the hidden hand" isn't specific enough. MacNeill certainly never took orders from the IRB, though he was on good terms with some of its members. (Also, on what page of Coogan's book does it imply that the IRB may have prompted MacNeill's article? I have that book in front of me and would like to see his exact phrasing.) Members of the IRB did much of the planning of the Rotunda meeting, but exactly who formed the Volunteers is not entirely straightforward. The three main people responsible were MacNeill, O'Rahilly, and Hobson. Of them, only Hobson was a member of the IRB, and upon the formation of the Volunteers, he had divided loyalties between the two groups. After the formation, the IRB merely had a disproportionate representation in the leadership, but were still a distinct minority. They didn;t gain effective control of the organization until 1916, and even then it was limited, as the Rising proved. Much of this can be supported by any number of books (Hobson himself in the collection Irish Volunteers 1913-1915 edited by F.X. Martin, Michael Tierney's book Eoin MacNeill, Robert Kee's The Green Flag', to name a few).

Okay, I probably said more than was necessary there, but I think it is certainly correct to say that the IRB had a hand in the creation of the Volunteers, but were not the creators of it, and I think the article needs to reflect that. I'm open to suggestions of exact phrasing. -R. fiend (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"in October 1913, a meeting to which MacNeill was invited was held in Wynne's Hotel Dublin, at the instigation of the IRB...the IRB men kept themselves in the background." Tim Pat Coogan, 1916: Easter Rising, pg. 50
"It may or may not have been an IRB man who prompted Eoin MacNeill, to write the momentous article..." op. cit.
As to the footnote, reference it, and explaine how it is relevant Maybe further down. It is not incorrect to say they were the creation of the IRB, the references say they were. To say they they had a hand in it is incorrect. They had a purpose, "secure control of the Volunteers" the word here is "secre" they had control from the start. "the hidden hand" is also a quote, the IRB, obviously, did I need to include that, I thought it was obvious. Who formed the Volunteers is entirely straightforward. The references again have said it! "They didn;t gain effective control of the organization until 1916" thats pure BS. Reference it! --Domer48 (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
As for the first quote, that's not on page 50 of my book. Do you have the hardcover edition? My page 50 deals with the landing at Howth. In any case, it seems it was Hobson who organized the first meeting at Wynn's Hotel, but he wasn't even present for it. To fully equate Hobson and the IRB is going a bit far, particularly in light of his siding with the Volunteer leadership over the IRB leadership with the Redmond vote. Additionally, calling an inaugural meeting and creating the Volunteers are not one and the same. The Volunteers were created in a series of meetings in which the IRB had a hand, but they were never the majority.
The second quote is irrelevant. "May or may not have" tells us nothing. My sources seem to say that it was O'Rahilly who encouraged MacNeill to write his article, and O'Rahilly was never a member of the IRB (though MacNeill may have believed he was).
As for control of the Volunteers, it is clear that the IRB did not have control of them, as the chairman (later Chief-of-Staff) was not only not an IRB member, but quite unsympathetic to them in general. The Provisional Committee had about 13 IRB men out of 30 members before Redmond's appointees were included in June, 1914, and obviously a much smaller percentage afterwards. (That they couldn't prevent Redmond from nearly taking over shows how little control they had.) It wasn't until after the split between the National and Irish Volunteers in September that the IRB really started to get real control over important things like mobilization, and even then they had to recruit Plunkett and MacDonagh, as well as the remaining commandant Valera. Even then IRB members were a small minority of the Volunteers (albeit a highly active and powerful one). Even on the eve of the rising, the integral headquarters staff was under the general command of a non-IRB man (MacNeill), had another (O'Rahilly) as director of arms, and had an out-of-the-loop, untrusted, and unsympathetic IRB man (Hobson) as quartermaster. Pearse's appointment as Director of military organization is the only reason they were able to mobilize the Volunteers for the "maneuvers" at Easter, which were a thinly veiled disguise for a general rising, and recruitment of the 4 commandants was the only reason they could actually stage a rebellion. That they didn't have effective control of the Volunteers even as the Rising was about to occur is evident that until the last minute they were trying to convince, and later trick, MacNeill into signing off on the rising, and when that didn't work, by forcing his hand by revealing that German weapons were being landed and the British were about to suppress the Volunteers if they didn't act first. And even after that, it's clear they didn't have complete control when a single note by MacNeill cut Volunteer turnout to a small fraction in Dublin, and basically stopped it in the rest of the country. The IRB played an important role in the creation of the Volunteers, but were not the creators, and while they had a highly disproportionate influence within the organization, they never fully controlled the Volunteers. They were always two very distinct organizations. -R. fiend (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

References! Not comment! --Domer48 (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This can all be backed up with many books on the subject. Sorry, but I can't take a single sentence quote to verify content covering several years of history. I gave you a partial list of books, and I can name some others, though it's been a while since I read most of them so trying to remember which book backs up which fact the best can take some time. What particular issues do you question? Surely you're familiar enough with some of the history that you don't need a citation for every sentence. Hobson's essay on the foundation of the Volunteers is a very good first hand source, though I imagine you'd have trouble finding it; I had to steal it from a university library. Tell me what specific facts you want cited and I'll try to get books and page numbers for you tomorrow, though it may take some time. I've got about a couple dozen books covering the Rising and it's players. -R. fiend (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Current text: "Since its inception in 1913, the Volunteers, were the creation of the IRB, for precisely this purpose"
Possible edit: "The IRB were closely involved in the formation of the Volunteers in 1913, aware that such a force could be used for insurrection in the event of a European war.<ref>The IRA, Tim Pat Coogan, 1970, page 33</ref>"
Scolaire (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Much better, though I don't think we need to mention the European War specifically, as they were anxious for an insurrection with or without a war (the war obviously proved to be an opportunity for them, but they would not have intended to wait for one). "...used for insurrection for the establishment of an Irish Republic" might be better. I'm also thinking that better phrasing would be "Members of the IRB were closely involved..." as it's a bit unclear what was being planned by the IRB as an organization, and what was being done by various Nationalists who were members of the IRB. The primary leaders of the IRB including the President (who I believe was James Deakin a the time) had little hand in the Volunteers, and I believe Tom Clarke was not involved at all. Yes, there were numerous members of the IRC involved in the Volunteers from the earliest day, but that's more true of the Gaelic League (almost all of the founding members of the Volunteers were also in the Gaelic League), and no one would claim they created the Volunteers. The IRB at the time was a recently revitalized organization that was still emerging from a period of complete stagnation, and many of their most important members for the coming insurrection had yet to be recruited. I guess that's sort of a minor point; the IRB certainly had plans for the Volunteers from the outset. -R. fiend (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"they were anxious for an insurrection with or without a war" that is so out of the park, I'd like a reference for that. One question, thats all! What were the objectives of the rising, just the main four will do. --Domer48 (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

So you maintain that if World War I had been averted (or if Britain would have stayed out of it), the IRB would have been content to sit on their hands and do nothing forever? I have no idea what they would have done exactly, or how it would have played out, but the IRB oath says nothing about waiting for Britain to get involved in a continental war of attrition before taking any action, particularly when they have partial control of a Volunteer army. -R. fiend (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah one more, why was Tom Clarke sent to Ireland in 1907? --Domer48 (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

One simply question, what nationalist organisation did the IRB not infiltrate at this time? Just a one word answer? --Domer48 (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Another quote:
  • "The Ulster Volunteers were then established by Carson to resist Home Rule. This gave the IRB the chance they had been hoping for, and they immediately set to work to establish the Irish Volunteers…Seán MacDermott and Bulmer Hobson did most of the work; Tom dared not show his nose in that, for to do so would make the British suspicious of it, but it was all done in collaboration with Tom behind the scenes." (Revolutionary Woman, Kathleen Clarke, 1991, page 44)
I'm not going to quote the entire page, but she goes on to say that the IRB decided who should be proposed to the Provisional Executive, that they should represent every section of the community, but that they should not include anybody who was identified with the revolutionary element. Hobson went against that decision by accepting the position of Secretary, and Clarke was shaken by that (the rift between the two men came later). She concludes:
  • "Let me explain that these precautions and safeguards were with the object of not arousing British suspicions about the real object of the Irish Volunteers; they really were intended to be the open arm of the IRB."
And from the same book:
  • "Uncle John would have liked to keep us in Limerick [in 1907], but from the point of view of the work Tom intended doing, to prepare the country to take advantage of the coming war, Dublin was best suited." (page 36)
And really, "if World War I had been averted" belongs in an alternative universe. It was regarded as inevitable, and it was inevitable. Scolaire (talk) 11:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I read Kathleen Clarke's book, and while it gives some very good insight into what Tom was doing, the entire thing is hardly impartial, and basically tries to convince the reader the Tom and MacDermott did everything (mostly at the expense of Hobson). And I see her point, those two are probably ore responsible for the Rising than anyone else, yet Pearse and Connolly seem to be the only two anyone remembers. In any case, the first quote can be established as not 100% true in that no one "immediately" set out to establish the Irish Volunteers, as they weren't formed for well over a year later (closer to two, I believe). Yes, Hobson and MacDermott were involved (particularly the former), but Kathleen makes it sound like those two did basically all the work, which simply isn't true. Clarke is not a historian; she writes from her perspective, but has no special knowledge of what happened at the Volunteers' formation. Hobson does. He lists all the people involved, and even gives their allegiances.
"...they really were intended to be the open arm of the IRB." Yes, that was the IRB's view of the situation, but that was not their established or stated purpose. The Irish Volunteers were never a republican organization, though the IRB basically sought to make them one. After the rising they evolved into the IRA (or with the rising, one could say, but even during the fighting some of the men involved were not staunch republicans), but that was a different situation.
I really don't want to dwell on the WWI scenario. I just think it's incorrect to say that the IRB was relying on a European war, and would not have ever acted without it. At least, I have seen no indication that they would have. (As for the inevitability of the war, well, nothing's 100% inevitable and British involvement certainly was not, Germany was counting on that). When the war started, the Supreme Council agreed that they must act before the end of the war, as it was too good an opportunity to miss, but they never said they would not act after the war. Shortly after the war started, the prevailing opinion was that it would be over in months, yet the IRB did not act until 1916. Did they know something about the duration that no one else did? How's this for a proposed edit: "The IRB were closely involved in the formation of the Volunteers in 1913, aware that such a force could be used for insurrection to establish an Irish Republic." If you like, something like "particularly given the likelihood of a imminent European war" could be added to the end, but I'd like to avoid any phrasing that implies no war = no insurrection. -R. fiend (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
"All of these were members of both the IRB, and (with the exception of Clarke) the Irish Volunteers. The IRB were closely involved in the formation of the Volunteers in 1913, aware that such a force could be used for insurrection to establish an Irish Republic, particularly given the likelihood of a imminent European war; hence by 1916 a large proportion of the Volunteer leadership were devoted republicans.[1]" That works for me. Scolaire (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. -R. fiend (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"Seán MacDermott and Bulmer Hobson did most of the work;" And yet R. fiend (talk) says Kathleen Clarke "basically tries to convince the reader the Tom and MacDermott did everything (mostly at the expense of Hobson)."

"the first quote can be established as not 100% true in that no one "immediately" set out to establish the Irish Volunteers" The references have established that they did! 100% true.

"she writes from her perspective" and so dose Hobson!

"Clarke is not a historian" and Hobson was?

R. fiend (talk) you are not the arbitrator of what is and is not a reliable source. Kathleen Clarke was a contemporary of this period, and had a more direct understanding on this period through her husband, Tom Clarke. It has been verifiably established that the IRB instigated the forming of the Volunteers, through reliable sources. So unless you come up with a verifiable source which says Kathleen Clarke is otherwise, it is just your opinion. In fact, that is what your contributions consist of, your opinion. Last quote, and that is it:

“They dared not move themselves. Any move by known physical force men in the direction of a Volunteer Force would be certain to be stopped notwithstanding the precedent established by Carson, and the I.R.B. therefore confined itself to encouraging the expression of the opinion that we, too, ought to organise a Volunteer Force for the defence of Ireland. As the Ulster move developed this opinion was given expression to by many people of unexceptionable “constitutional” charter by followers of the Irish Parliamentary Party, and by followers of no party, who saw in the Ulster move a threat to Home Rule. From July, 1913, a small Committee met regularly in Dublin and watched the growth of opinion, refraining from taking any action until the Ulster precedent should have been solidly established, and hoping for a lead from some “constitutional” quarter. The lead came fro Eoin McNeill, Professor of Early Irish History in University College, Dublin, without political affiliation of any kind, Vice-President of the Gaelic League, who wrote an article in the League paper advocating the formation of an Irish Volunteer Force. McNeill was interviewed and agreed to take a part in the formation of such a force, other constitutionalists of the same mind appeared, and eventually a Provisional Committee for the establishment of a Volunteer Force met at the end October.” P. S. O'Hegarty, A History of Ireland Under the Union 1801 to 1922, Methuen & Co. Ltd, London, Pg.669

References, not opinion. --Domer48 (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said, Hobson, while not a historian, was a primary source for the formation as the Volunteers, being one of the main people involved. Kathleen Clarke, a primary source on certain things, had no direct involvment to the Volunteers (nor did her husband, really). P.S. O'Hegarty (who, if memory serves, was on the Supreme Council of the IRB at the time) is a good source on the period to be sure, says basically what I've been saying, that the IRB played a substantial role in the creation but it was carried out by MacNeill and "other constitutionalists" as well as IRB members.
Kathleen Clarke does downplay Hobson's role in the quote above by basically implying that his contribution was equal to MacDermott's, when Hobson's role was substantially greater (I don't think anyone denies this, even Kathleen does not directly do so). And when the The Ulster Volunteers were formed in early 1912, and the Irish Volunteers in late 1913, how is one "immediately" following the other? What references do you have that establish this "immediate" formation? Also "instigated the formation of the Volunteers" is not the same as "creating" the Volunteers, which is what the article says. I wouldn't really have a problem with the former phrasing. Saying any one person or entity "created" the Volunteers is an over-simplification. Detailed accounts of the formation of the Volunteers give a better account than Kathleen Clarke's single statement that "Seán MacDermott and Bulmer Hobson did most of the work", without giving any further details. -R. fiend (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I’m not going to play word games with you. You don’t like the word “created,” snap neither do I, but that was the word that was used by the source. Since you have no problem with the word “instigated” I can live with that, as it dose not alter the context of the sources which would be original research. --Domer48 (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Except that R. fiend and I have already agreed a wording that is in accordance with the sources - Hobson as well as Clarke, is NPOV and essentially says what you are trying to say anyway. I am adding that wording now. Scolaire (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Except that is not what the sources say, Hobson as well as Clarke were IRB. As to R. fiend "The 2 main people responsible (MacNeill and O'Rahilly) were never even members." What I have put there reflects exactly what the sources say:
  • "in October 1913, a meeting to which MacNeill was invited was held in Wynne's Hotel Dublin, at the instigation of the IRB...the IRB men kept themselves in the background." Tim Pat Coogan, 1916: Easter Rising, pg. 50
  • "The IRB seized its chance to capitalise on this sense of identity when Eoin MacNeill, vice-president of the Gaelic League, wrote an article in the organ of the Gaelic League, An Cliadheamh Soluis, in October 1913, proposing that a body of Southern Volunteers be established on the same line as the Ulster Volunteers. Using the respected name of MacNeill as a front, the IRB organised a meeting to which all parties were invited, at the Rotunda Hall, Dublin, on November 25." (The IRA, Tim Pat Coogan, 1970, page 33)
  • "The Ulster Volunteers were then established by Carson to resist Home Rule. This gave the IRB the chance they had been hoping for, and they immediately set to work to establish the Irish Volunteers…Seán MacDermott and Bulmer Hobson did most of the work; Tom dared not show his nose in that, for to do so would make the British suspicious of it, but it was all done in collaboration with Tom behind the scenes." (Revolutionary Woman, Kathleen Clarke, 1991, page 44)

I'm not going to quote the entire page, but she goes on to say that the IRB decided who should be proposed to the Provisional Executive, that they should represent every section of the community, but that they should not include anybody who was identified with the revolutionary element. Hobson went against that decision by accepting the position of Secretary, and Clarke was shaken by that (the rift between the two men came later). She concludes: "Let me explain that these precautions and safeguards were with the object of not arousing British suspicions about the real object of the Irish Volunteers; they really were intended to be the open arm of the IRB." And from the same book:

  • "Uncle John would have liked to keep us in Limerick [in 1907], but from the point of view of the work Tom intended doing, to prepare the country to take advantage of the coming war, Dublin was best suited." (page 36)
  • “They dared not move themselves. Any move by known physical force men in the direction of a Volunteer Force would be certain to be stopped notwithstanding the precedent established by Carson, and the I.R.B. therefore confined itself to encouraging the expression of the opinion that we, too, ought to organise a Volunteer Force for the defence of Ireland. As the Ulster move developed this opinion was given expression to by many people of unexceptionable “constitutional” charter by followers of the Irish Parliamentary Party, and by followers of no party, who saw in the Ulster move a threat to Home Rule. From July, 1913, a small Committee met regularly in Dublin and watched the growth of opinion, refraining from taking any action until the Ulster precedent should have been solidly established, and hoping for a lead from some “constitutional” quarter. The lead came fro Eoin McNeill, Professor of Early Irish History in University College, Dublin, without political affiliation of any kind, Vice-President of the Gaelic League, who wrote an article in the League paper advocating the formation of an Irish Volunteer Force. McNeill was interviewed and agreed to take a part in the formation of such a force, other constitutionalists of the same mind appeared, and eventually a Provisional Committee for the establishment of a Volunteer Force met at the end October.” P. S. O'Hegarty, A History of Ireland Under the Union 1801 to 1922, Methuen & Co. Ltd, London, Pg.669
  • It has been argued that the Rising was a coup de main by the IRB on the unsuspecting Volunteers, especially in Headquarters. That ignores the fact that the Volunteers, to begin with, were the creation of the IRB with the intention of using them for precisely this purpose. The Rising was planned by the Military Council in the closest secrecy, unknown even to Volunteer officers often sharing HQ duties, responsibilities and directorates with them." Eoin Neeson, Myths from Easter 1916, Aubane Historical Society, Cork, 2007, ISBN 978 1 903497 34 0 Pg.81
  • would certainly read from that that the IRB were behind the formation of the Volunteers, and that MacNeill was a figurehead. Scolaire (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
So from the sources provided, the IRB were the ones who instigated the formation of the Volunteers. And "McNeill was interviewed and agreed to take a part in the formation of such a force." The wording reflects what these sources say, to attempt to change the context is not going to run. --Domer48 (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Domer, I'm sorry, you have done some excellent editing on this article, but this dog in the manger attitude is spoiling it. It's silly and tiresome. There's more to editing Wikipedia than shouting "verifiability", "reliable sources" and "original research" like the Queen of Hearts shouting "off with his head!" The next time you do an edit, read what it says at the bottom of the page: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly … do not submit it. I wouldn't mind if this tirade was directed against some rabidly anti-republican editors, rather than two like-minded people who have spent the last 24 hours looking for an acceptable and NPOV wording. Now, R. fiend has referenced two sources, I have referenced two and you have referenced two. All six agree that the IRB was involved in the formation of the Volunteers (some say they were the prime movers, others differ), all agree that the IRB were aware the force could be used for armed insurrection, and at least some say that an imminent war would provide the opportunity. Therefore all of these facts are verifiable against said reliable sources and are not original research. Now why don't you go and have a cup of tea and then think about how you can usefully edit this article. Scolaire (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that Scolaire (talk), but WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR is what makes wiki work, so I'll stick with what I'm doing. But do you know what is really funny! As soon as I start to reference an article, suddenly editors pop out of the wood work and start to challange! Nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but they ignore all the unreferenced stuff! Now from experiance, my reaction to BS, is to just continue editing! So why don't you get R. fiend to put down the quotes, minus the commentary and I'm more than willing to work it in. What I will not do, is play BS word games. The best thing for an article is to have editors with opposing views to work through it together, but not the patent nonsense that is evident to date! I’ll just ignore the barbed comments, I see myself above that petty point scoring. --Domer48 (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Let me repeat what I said above: you have done some excellent editing on this article. There is a great deal of BS in it, a lot of unreferenced stuff, and you have been working your way through it. I'm not about to start on it - I said I would do it months ago and never did, so I trust you to do it now. That's on the level, no point scoring. I admit I was annoyed when I wrote the last post. That was because you thanked me for providing sources, then turned around and accused me of original research and ignoring the sources, using my own quotes to attack me with. That is not on. In plain English, that is bullying. You say "the best thing for an article is to have editors with opposing views to work through it together", but you shout down R. fiend and refuse to accept anything but a one-word amendment to your text. That is not on. That is bullying. Now, I'm asking you, please stop this behaviour over something that does not even change the tone or import of the article, and start working with people who, like you, want to improve this article. Scolaire (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
"instigated the formation of the Volunteers" is not the same as "creating" the Volunteers, which is what the article says. I wouldn't really have a problem with the former phrasing." R. fiend. So what did I do? I changed it. Now as to "bullying" "shout down" please! "using my own quotes to attack me with" spare me. While it sounds all very dramatic it lacks one ingredient, “substance.” "So why don't you get R. fiend to put down the quotes, minus the commentary and I'm more than willing to work it in." Ye looks like I not will to work "with" people. Agree with R. fiend and amend text, and will to put in an opposing view. Now I'm more than willing to move on and work through the article and address "a great deal of BS in it." --Domer48 (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"Instigated" is certainly better than "created", but I think the phrasing Scolaire and I came up with is better still. Saying "instigated" can imply that they were the sole instigators, when there were several contributing factors (the formation of the Ulster Volunteers, the publication of The North Began, to name two). I'm happy to get the input of other editors; a note over at Wikiproject Irish Republicanism would be a good place to start. -R. fiend (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm out of here! I'm not willing to put up with this abuse for trying to make a readable article. No article is worth it. Happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should IRA be included as Combatants

Should we include IRA as Combatants in the Info box, and in the article? The reason I ask, I was going to include them. Thought I would check first, as it my be contentious. --Domer48 (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on this. While the term IRA was used, I believe the individual combatants would generally have still called themselves "Volunteers" or "ICA". Their uniforms (those who had them) would have reflected that. Putting down IRA might lead the casual reader to associate it with the IRA as it is known today, which is quite different. I notice that Scolaire had some strong opinions above against the IRB being listed as combatants (as they now are), so he might on this as well. -R. fiend (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have mixed views on it, and would welcome more opinions. --Domer48 (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another issue

The paragraph about negotiations with Germany should be rephrased. Right now it says that Casement represented the IRB, which is at least misleading. Casement was never an IRB member, and his goal in Germany was to negotiate on behalf of the Volunteers. His isolation there caused all sorts of problems for him.

Also, Count Plunkett's exact role should be stated more clearly. As I recall, it was pretty minor. -R. fiend (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Casement was not a member of the IRB, but was aware of the role that wished him to play, and to take advantage of the contacts he had in Germany.--Domer48 (talk) 11:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"The plan encountered its first major hurdle when" this was hardly the first. Things such as Redmonds attempted take over, the split etc. I will address some of this. --Domer48 (talk) 11:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess, though I would sort of consider the Redmond's meddling to have occurred prior to "the plan", which wasn't really formulated in any meaningful way until the establishment of the Military Committee. But that's a minor semantic point. Changing "IRB" to "The Irish" in the section about Germany was a big improvement.-R. fiend (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed some of the most obvious Speculation and comment. I will address some of the references myself, but if editors wish to lend a hand. The is no mention of Cumann na mBan at all in the aricle, and 200 members took part, thats desperate. --Domer48 (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:RIC Station Badge.gif

Image:RIC Station Badge.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy of the Rising

In this section there is so much comment and opinion and hardly a reference. i have removed some of the most obvious, and placed some tags. --Domer48 (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Objectives

I have added the objectives of the IRB, as these were compleatly missing, leaving no context to their plans. --Domer48 (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What is your source that military victory was "never" a consideration? That is certainly true by the time the rising was underway, but when they had hopes for the entire body of Volunteers turning out (there were well over 100,000 before the split), as well as 100,000 rifles, plus machine guns, artillery, and German officers, are you sure none of them even held out any hope a successful rebellion? Casement, isolated in Germany, tried to raise a brigade of a few thousand Irishmen and secure substantial German aid in hopes of a successful rising, before he was dismayed by the Germans' lack of commitment. Certainly MacNeill's countermand, the indifference of the germans, and the scuttling of the Aud destroyed any remote hope for military success, but prior to all that the situation was very different. They never counted on victory; they were going to stage an uprising whatever their chances of success, but that is not the same as never considering it. -R. fiend (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Please provide references, and we can work any opposing views in. I will be expanding on this, and just want to get the basics down. So what you need now is a reference which clearly states that the planned a military victory. A reference which calculates the resources of "100,000 rifles, plus machine guns, artillery, and German officers." References which explaines the "Germans' lack of commitment," and "the indifference of the Germans." You will also need references which show that they did "considering it" a victory that is. As to what is my source, read the article, its referenced. The next book to be used will be the P. S. Hegerthy, John Devoy: Rebel and then Last Words. I will also be including some pictures, such as the surrender statement, Irish War news and some pictures from the prison. This approch is called layering. --Domer48 (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

When a military force engages in armed conflict, the person who says that they never hoped to win needs to provide sources more than the one who says they initially had some hope for victory. I don't deny that they went forward on Easter Monday fully knowing they were going to be slaughtered; Connolly said so in as many words. I'd like a reliable source that indicates, from the beginning of their planning, they never considered a military victory.
That they hoped for real support from Germany can be referenced in Michael Foy and Brian Barton's The Easter Rising, p. 14: "What Plunkett hoped to secure from the Germans was a commitment to send a large expeditionary force to Ireland which would land simultaneously with the start of the Rising." It goes into more details further about what exactly they expected; it's pretty substantial. Yeah, it was basically a pipe-dream, but it showed they had hoped for some degree of success at one point. There are other sources about what Casement tried to get from Germany and his disappointment with what they gave him (which is why he was against the Rising going forward). -R. fiend (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

When you provide references, it can be discussed. I have referenced my edits. --Domer48 (talk) 08:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The relative positions prior to the Rising would be comparable to the Irish taking on the USA to day. While I understand this would be considered an under estimation, it gives a sense of scale. Would a military victory be contemplated, or course not. So your objectives be determined not by what was proable, but was realistically achievable. Lets keep the discussion in the realms of reality. --Domer48 (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You've used an entire book to cite an entire paragraph. That's not very specific. While it would be fine for a straightforward summation of facts, but a controversial statement such as that they never considered any sort of military victory needs something specific. I don't have the book (and can't find it on Amazon), could you quote exactly what he says about that?
I also have to dispute your statement that it would be comparable to the Irish taking on the USA today (source?). Seems it may be more like the American colonies taking on the British Empire. Or maybe like Iraq trying to drive the US out (there are no perfect analogies). The Volunteers didn't need to conquer Britain or anything; they just needed to make British rule in Ireland impractical, and the asserting of British power in Ireland not worth the trouble during a time when the British military was facing it's greatest crisis in more than a century. If they had all 13,000 Volunteers turn out, armed, (particularly with the aid of Germany) who's to say they wouldn't have had a military victory, especially with the British army tied up on the continent? When the Supreme Council met at the outbreak of war, the Volunteers had what, nearly 200,000 members, of whom they aimed to control? Yet they never considered the possibility of victory? If their only aim was to get slaughtered in order to get Pearse his blood sacrifice and print the declaration of a Republic, why was it so important to do it while Britain was at war? That they would ever get a seat at a peace conference was a pipe dream (although if Germany had one it may have been a possibility; that was Casement's one potential success). The IRB knew that England's difficulty was Ireland's opportunity because it presented them the bet chance they ever had for success. (Would you say they never considered success in 1798 or 1867?) In terms of PR it was a disaster, as many Dubliners saw it as an insult to their family members who were fighting in France and Belgium. Did they really never even hope to achieve as much success as they did in 1921, at a time when Britain wasn't caught up in a foreign war?
My main objection is the word "never" as being too absolute. Maybe "not a serious aim" would be better? I'll look for sources that contradict that, but the statement "they wanted to win" is slightly hard to find, for obvious reasons. -R. fiend (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have explained how I intend to proceed! My reference has an ISBN number! Now reference your opinions. --Domer48 (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a couple quotes here that support my point. They are from Leaders and Men of the Easter Rising: Dublin 1916, edited by FX Martin. The article is called "Ceannt, Devoy, O'Rahilly, and the military plan" by Florence O'Donoghue: "Besides seeking to substitute a free native government for a firmly established alien administration, their vision included a greater and more sublime purpose - to redirect into its ancient native traditions the course of a nation's life, perhaps a dying nation, and save its honour and its soul" (p.189) The "Besides..." part implying they had hope for success; I do not deny their other objectives, particularly the revitalizing the spirit part. Then on page 191: "The plan may therefore be regarded as a dual purpose one, primarily and ambitiously as a national uprising to seize the country, proclaim a republic and defend it in arms, and within the ambit of that effort an irrevocable determination to make 'a bloody protest for a glorious thing', even if adverse circumstances limited its duration and extent." They were by no means counting on success (that success was not likely is the reason why men like Hobson and O'Rahilly were against the Rising), but its too strong to say it was "never a consideration." -R. fiend (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Provide a refernces which says a military victory was "a consideration." --Domer48 (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What exactly does your source say? Because I cannot recall reading anything saying that no one, in all their planning for an insurrection, never even considered the idea of such a military action being successful, not even in preliminary discussions. I know their objectives in 1916 were not necessarily military in the sense of driving all the British forces right out of Ireland, but ideally, that was their eventual overall mission. Declaring a republic isn't doing much good if it's never established, revitalization of revolutionary spirit does no one any good if it doesn't eventually lead to a successful revolution of some sort, and certainly there is nothing in the IRB constitution saying that their mission is to get what they can by hanging on to the coattails of a major European power at a peace conference after they defeat Britain in a major war (which is the only way they would ever have made it to the peace table; the victors don't give up their possessions, the losers do). The long-term goal of the IRB was to rid Ireland of British rule and establish an Irish republic (I assume you aren't going to demand a source for that) and it was through military engagement that they expected to do this (I assume you don't need a reference to show that the IRB did not support the IPP). Yet you say that the idea of them actually doing this was never even on anyone's mind? Why did that goal suddenly change during the War for Independence? When did this rift occur between their ideal aims and their realistic goals?
Okay, you've supplied an ISBN. Now can we see a page number and a quote? Just here on the talk page. What does the reference actually say? -R. fiend (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

As from now, could you please confine yourself to referenced sources? I would much prefer you desist from putting forward your opinions as fact, incessant commentary or providing your analyse. This is not the forum for original research. If you again question my integrity as to the references I use I will view it as a personal attack.

“ But, even on the positive side, there is a fundamental flaw in the common version of The Rising. Most books and articles written during the past 20 years about it contain the assumption that the Volunteers fought the British forces in Ireland in the hope — even in the prospect — of achieving some kind of military victory.

Even to the least military minded it should not take more than a moment’s reflection to appreciate that the idea of a military victory by the Volunteers over the British Army in Ireland is preposterous. At no time was any such hope, prospect or intent part of the IRB/Volunteer plan.” Pg. 75

 ”
“ Contrary to what may be described as a simplistic — if prevalent — conclusion, it needs to be emphasised that the decision for a rising against the English occupation does not mean, and should not be interpreted as meaning, that it would be either along ‘blood-sacrifice lines, or that any prospect of military victory was envisaged. The Volunteers allowed for some military success, but overall military victory was not, and never could have been, an objective of The Rising.” Pg. 81 ”

--Domer48 (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Now we're starting to get somewhere (though I still think you have a skewed view of what original research, or even opinions, are). Now, your source admittedly contradicts most other sources on the matter. What does he have to offer as proof that they are wrong and he is right? Apparently, merely the idea that "a moment's reflection" on the matter would yield the inevitable conclusion that victory would be "preposterous." Very short on specifics, and now we're taking his word as fact, even when he admits his view is the minority. Does he have any sources on which he is basing the fact that no one, at any time, had even any hope of victory? To be honest, his approach sounds a bit sour grapes to me ("Of course they were defeated; that was there plan all along! Do you honestly think they ever planned a military engagement with the intent of actually winning?" Preposterous!") Since Neeson seems to be the only one arguing this, if it is to be included in the article it should be cited as his view of the situation. I don't think we can take the approach that the IRB cast aside its stated goal (establishment of a republic, by force of arms if necessary) at a time when they had more in their favor than perhaps ever before, merely because Eoin Neeson says so. -R. fiend (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please confine yourself to referenced sources? Stop putting forward your opinions as fact, incessant commentary and providing your analyse. This is not the forum for original research. --Domer48 (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Just some of the books by the same author: Birth of a Republic, The Civil War, The Life and Death of Michael Collins, A History of Irish Forestry, The Book of Irish Saints, An Tain, Cuchulain’s Saga, The Imperishable Celtic Epic, Deirdre and Other Great Stories from Celtic Mythology, The First Book of Irish Myths and Legends, The Second Book of Irish Myths and Legends, Irish Myths and Legends, Celtic Myths and Legends, Aspects of Parallelism in Japanese and Irish Character and Culture. This dose not include his writings under Pseudonyms, fiction, poetry, plays or the various radio and television plays.--Domer48 (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop saying the same thing over and over again. It gets tiresome. What opinion have I stated that you disagree with? Why is it okay to put down Neeson's opinion as fact when he contradicts "Most books and articles written during the past 20 years" with scant evidence? If you want another reference to victory, there's Kathleen Clarke, relating words spoken to her husband on Easter Monday after MacNeill's countermand has largely ruined their plans. She asks Tom if "there is any way out with honour other than what you are doing, going to certain death, with all hope of success gone?" (p.78). So there's an indication from someone very close to Clarke indicating that he had some hope of a successful rising at one point. Yeah, so Neeson's written a bunch of books, why does that make his word gospel? -R. fiend (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Please confine yourself to referenced sources? Stop putting forward your opinions as fact, incessant commentary and providing your analyse. This is not the forum for original research. --Domer48 (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Very mature. Just keep repeating the same thing over and over again, no matter how many sources I give you. And keep crying "original research" for anything I say that is not the direct quote of a publish author (and even what is). You keep saying those words; I do not think they mean what you think they mean. (Besides, calling what I say "original research" is original research, you're guilty to). Do you know Andy Schlafly by any chance? You'd get along swimmingly. Okay, you like ISBN's so much. Here are some ISBN's for you: 0 00 633200 5, 1-57098-042-X, 0-15-178327-6, 0-7509-2616-3, 1-85635-276-5, 1-85371-068-7, 0-965-088169, 0-14-014760-8, 0-19-822440-0, 0-302-35902-5, 0-14-021394-5. That should be enough for now. 10 books trump 1. I win. Don't ask me what any of those books actually say or I'l take it as a personal attack. -R. fiend (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Casement

Casement in his prison manuscript wrote: “I want to make it very plain that I approve of the Rising — failure and all — in one sense. As a man of ‘travelled mind and understanding’ I should never have sanctioned it had I been in Ireland, but since those there were bent on it, I, too (like the O’Rahilly) would have gone with it”.

  • Note: The reference to the word "sanctioned." Casement was never in a position to "sanction" the Rising.

This is supported by Captain Robert Monteith, Casement’s lieutenant who accompanied him and landed with him at Banna Strand, categorically denies the allegation, he wrote: “Another error into which some writers have fallen is the assumption that Casement tried to stop the Rising. This is not even a half-truth”, (Robert Monteith Casements Last Adventure). Mackey also deals peremptorily with these falsehoods.

Eoin Neeson in his book (op. cit. Pg. 101) says it’s possible that the theory that he came to stop the Rising originated with Eva Gore-Booth (Countess Markievicz’s sister), who, during Casement’s trial, made precisely this allegation - presumably trying to mitigate the case against him. Quoting from Sir Basil Thompsons diaries for 22 July, 1916, cited by Alfred Noyes, The Accusing Ghost or Justice for Casement, London, 1957, p. 17. --Domer48 (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, agreeing with the rising "in one sense" doesn't mean he didn't try to stop it. Others also agreed with it in some sense, but still tried to stop it, most notably O'Rahilly (whose actions Casement specifically relates to in the above quote). I find the Monteith quote more compelling, as he'd be in a position to know Casement's mind at the time. I think there's enough controversy on this point that it should be more fully addressed in the article (and if not here, then certainly in Casement's). Roger McHugh's article, "Casement and German help", in the FX Martin book mentioned above quite clearly states "Casement's [aim was] to stop or postpone the rising at Easter; failing that, to die in it." This is O'Rahilly's exact aim as well. Again Casement's own words show he and O'Rahilly were of a like mind. That Eva Gore-Booth made it up in an attempt to save him is certainly an interesting theory; I had not heard that before (how would she of all people be in a position to know?). (I wonder if Monteith took the opposite approach, where Gore-Booth tried to save his life, Monteith years later trying to save his reputation; after the Easter leaders became heroes, it doesn't do Casement's already tarnished reputation much good if he had tried to prevent the entire affair. Yes, yes, I know, "original research," but in this case there are plenty of sources to the contrary about what Casement was doing, it does no harm to use the talk page to speculate on why.) In any case, do any sources contradict the the statement that, if nothing else, Casement was disappointed with the level of support Germany was offering? I have offered some sources indicating he was. Casement is one of the most enigmatic figures in the rising, and much about him is confusing. -R. fiend (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

None of the sources contradict the statement that Casement was disappointed with the level of support Germany was offering. It is for that reason I left it in. The only thing I was not sure of was if the reference that was used was also applicable to that statement describing his disappointment. For that reason I left the reference in also? --Domer48 (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was removed, but since you voice no objections I worked it back into the section. -R. fiend (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing referenced information

Referenced information should not be removed simply because an editor can not come up with a source to dispute what is in the article. --Domer48 (talk) 09:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The editor is removing sourced material, claiming the issue is covered in later sections, it isn't, I have restored the text and if he still has a issue heshould discuss it here first.--Padraig (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This appears in the following section:
The specific goals of the Military Council are complex and somewhat unclear. While their goal was certainly to declare and defend and Irish Republic, it is not entirely certain if they ever planned, or even hoped, to establish such a nation. Historian Eoin Neeson has stated that a plan involving a military victory was never a consideration, and while the Leaders considered there would be some military success, but an overall military victory was never an objective of the Rising.[1] What set the members of the Military Council apart from the majority of the Volunteers, and even from some other members of the IRB (such as Bulmer Hobson), is their determination to stage an insurrection regardless of its actual chance for success. Certainly by the time the Rising began any hope that may have ever existed for military victory was gone. Objectives of the Rising included declaration of an Irish Republic and revitalisation the spirit of the people and arouse separatist national fervour. Additionally they hoped to claim a place at the post war peace conference in the event of German victory in the World War (during the war, Roger Casement would later negotiate with Germany of behalf of Ireland). Furthermore James Connolly brought another element: a commitment to socialism.
It's the same exact material, only phrased better, as it doesn't take the view of a single revisionist author as an established fact. That there was never any plan for military success is his minority viewpoint, not backed up by any other author as far as I can tell (he even admits he contradicts years of scholarship on this). The statement remains in the article, but is presented as his view. If it can be backed up by other sources it can be discussed more. As for the other issues, the goals of the rising are still there, almost entirely unchanged, but expanded on. If you have a specific issue with that paragraph by all means discuss it here. But it should be devastatingly obvious that inclusion of the earlier paragraph is completely redundant, making for very poor style. -R. fiend (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Many of the leaders expressed the opinion that the rising would fail but thought that the rising was necessary to inspire future generations to achieve Irish freedom.--Padraig (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
True, at least at a time, but that's not the same as never having victory be a goal, which is what Neeson says. I fully admit that sources indicate that 1. they were willing to go forward however impossible victory may seem, 2. By the time the rising was about to begin, they all knew it was a lost cause militarily, and 3. They had other goals, considered more significant by some. But what Neeson says (and what the article takes as a 100% true fact) is that form the time of the outbreak of WWI until the Rising began, none of the people involved ever even considered military success a possibility. That is the view of a single historian (Neeson) who, from what I can tell from the excerpts above, doesn't back up the position well. He clearly wasn't there, so what are his sources for that? I can't find a single other book that makes that claim, and several that contradict it. For that reason, to be included it must be expressed as the view of that author. The way phrased it, it is. In any case, you can see that the paragraph is redundant, can't you? -R. fiend (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph is not redundant, it may require rewording to make it clearer. Total victory was never possible through the rising, but it was a important first strike and necessary to continue the struggle for freedom, this was what the leadership then hopes to achieve and they did, therefore in that sense the rising wasn't a failure.--Padraig (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course its redundant, it says exactly the same thing, only in a misleading way. What is one fact that the earlier paragraph states that is not in the later one? We can argue about whether or not the IRB ever intended to establish a republic, but in the meantime, if my rewritten paragraph suits you, why do we need that info twice? It's poor form. What single fact is not redundant? -R. fiend (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Who says that it is redunant? You? You are going around today like a one man army. Where is your concensus to say it is redundant and should be move? You are edit warring - block yourself! ;) --Vintagekits (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The intention of the IRB Council was the establishment of the Republic, but they didn't believe the rising would achieve that alone, but was necessary, the IRB remained in control after the rising and where instrumental in the re-organising of the Army after the rising, which led to the war of Independence.--Padraig (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know, thanks. Now find me a source other than Neeson who says that no involved party ever considered military success, even in the earliest stages of planning? -R. fiend (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide a source to contradict that viewpoint, such as a statement or comment by any of the leaders stating a military victory was possible through the rising, the leaders were determined to go through with the rising even though they they knew they were facing certain death.--Padraig (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
It is admittedly difficult to find a concise quote to that affect for the very reason that when a military engagement is planned, it is generally with victory in mind. If this is not the case, that is a pretty major detail, and one that would be mentioned frequently by historians. Even Neeson says that "Most books and articles written during the past 20 years about it contain the assumption that the Volunteers fought the British forces in Ireland in the hope — even in the prospect — of achieving some kind of military victory." So there he admits himself that his view is something of a revisionist one. If you look above (far above), I found some quotes from sources indicating a military victory was at least hoped for a one point. If someone is going to take the stance that a group is planing a military action but has no consideration for victory, then that person has to strongly back up that argument. We have a single author who doesn't seem to back up his case with any earlier sources (his book was published this year, so there has been little time for other historians to respond). Consider someone putting forth that Rommel never intended to win at El Alamein unless you can come up with a quote from Rommel saying "Off I go to trty to beat the Brits today. I'm aiming to win!" Of course you can't.
It is certainly true that they were determined to go forth regardless of the probability or possibility for victory (my edit even stated that quite clearly, and any source will back that up), and certainly by Easter they knew there was no hope (probably long before that too). The overall mission of the IRB was the establishment of an Irish Republic (I hope everyone is going to try to deny that); to say that was one thing they were certainly not actually hoping to accomplish is a rather contentious statement. Further sources that back up the "never a consideration" argument would be welcomed, but single author's word should not be taken as a fact. -R. fiend (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be the only one that thinks it is redudent R. fiend (talk) all you seem to have done is added unreferenced origanal reasearch. BigDunc (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

f you're going to comment, at least read what's being commented on. I expanded, rephrased, and moved a paragraph. I didn't remove anything. Re-inserting the some paragraph in a different place in its pre-edited form is of course redundant. What is one fact stated in the earlier paragraph that is not in my expanded one? Show me and we'll have something to discuss. Better yet, I'll walk us through it. Here is the earlier form:

A plan involving a military victory was not a consideration. The Leaders considered there would be some military success, but an overall military victory was never an objective of the Rising.

This is stated again, only expressly as the views of single historian. The new paragraph says:

Historian Eoin Neeson has stated that a plan involving a military victory was never a consideration, and while the Leaders considered there would be some military success, but an overall military victory was never an objective of the Rising.

The exact same thing, only directly citing the author.

The IRB set out three main objectives for the Rising: First, declare an Irish Republic, second, revitalise the sprit of the people and arouse separatist national fervour, and thirdly, claim a place at the post war peace conference.

The new paragraph says:

Objectives of the Rising included declaration of an Irish Republic and revitalisation the spirit of the people and arouse separatist national fervour. Additionally they hoped to claim a place at the post war peace conference in the event of German victory in the World War (during the war, Roger Casement would later negotiate with Germany of behalf of Ireland).

It's the exact same thing, only a relevant mention of casement's role is added. (If you don't like it we can discuss its removal. So explain to me, since I just established that almost every word from the first version appears in the second, how is it NOT redundant? -R. fiend (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Front Page Irish War News.JPG

Image:Front Page Irish War News.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Original research

Information which is added to the article must be both verifiable and reliably sourced. {{WP:V|"Verifiable"]] in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.--Domer48 (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Back to edit warring, are we, Domer? You know, calling something "original research" does not make it original research. Especially grammar fixes and clarifications. If you have a problem with edits, don't just do mass reversions because you feel like being an ass. -R. fiend (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
As a so call admin you must be aware of WP:NPA but if not read it again and stop abusing editors who disagree with OR that you have inserted on to this article. BigDunc (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
And where's the OR? -R. fiend (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Improper synthesis of material. Information which is added to the article must be both verifiable and reliably sourced. {{WP:V|"Verifiable"]] in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. --Domer48 (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, discussion is not posting irrelevant templates on the talk page. Please read WP:DICK. -R. fiend (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Improper synthesis of material. Information which is added to the article must be both verifiable and reliably sourced.--Domer48 (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Protected the page at this time, hoping to force discussion or dispute resolution over sniping and edit warring. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Im sure that goes both ways R. fiend (talk) as domer says where is verifiable andreliably sourced in your edits. BigDunc (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
It would be great if we could have a succinct description of what the actual dispute is here. Please, no more sniping; this page is for discussing improvements to the article. --John (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I added a footnote for the part about how the IRB was an organization devoted to an Irish Republic (a ridiculous thing to have to do; I might as well cite that socialists advocate socialism or feminists advocate feminism, but if that's what people demand...). As for removal of the note on Devoy sending Clarke to Ireland, well, for one it's got no footnote (a minor point that I don't much care about; I know it can be verified by sources), but the main thing is it's disruptive to the paragraph. It goes from discussing negotiations with Germany in one sentence, then jumps back 7 years to discuss someone not relevant to the paragraph, then the next sentence goes right back to the negotiations. It's very awkward. Put it somewhere else maybe (certainly in the articles on Clarke and Devoy) but not right there. (A more minor note, listing years as "1914, 15, and 16" is poor style, at least it should be "1914, 1915, and 1916" but reducing lists of years like that would be preferable).
The final change I made was rephrasing a misleading sentence. Right now it says that the "Volunteers...had fellow IRB members elevated to officer rank whenever possible" when what's important is that the IRB members within the Volunteers had fellow IRB men elevated. This was not done as part of official Volunteers policy. There's a difference, and a significant one. So what's the specific issue with these edits? Where's the original research? Where's the issue with "improper synthesis"? -R. fiend (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

John, read the volumes of text above. First, the IRB were the one’s behind the formation of the Volunteers, verifiable and reliably sourced. Second, never, was a military victory suggested by the Leaders of the Rising, verifiable and reliably sourced. The objectives for the Rising are laid out clearly and are verifiable and reliably sourced. Now that is all there is. If there is an alternative view, well just ensure its verifiable and reliably sourced. First that a military victory was planned, that they planned to beat one of the biggest military powers of the day. Second, that was their object, as ridiculous as it sounds. So John, simplify things for you, just ask for sources, not comment or opinion or an analysis, just references. Improper synthesis of material, is not accepted. --Domer48 (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Domer. I did skim through the page, hence my use of the term "succinct" above. My experience of disputes here is that they are resolved more easily if we can boil it down to something along the lines of "Editor X thinks the y paragraph should read such-and-such, for these stated reasons, whereas editor Z thinks it should read so-and-so, for these reasons". Stating the problem simply may make it easier to resolve for all. See what you can do. --John (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree, John, and I'm glad someone is finally trying to address specifics on the talk page. It's been an uphill battle. I've put forward my suggestions, and at least one other editor (Padraig) has said he has no problems with them. Nevertheles they keep getting reverted.
Domer is relying on a single author for his statement that a military victory was never considered. That one author even says that "most books and articles written during the past 20 years about it contain the assumption that the Volunteers fought the British forces in Ireland in the hope — even in the prospect — of achieving some kind of military victory" (p. 75 of his source). So the author readily admits that this is a minority viewpoint, and he is taking a revisionist stance. Now I'm all for including it, but not for giving it undue weight by stating it is a fact. I have seen no other source that backs this up. Just getting the article to state that this was an historian's view has been like pulling teeth, as he has been reverting any edits I make to the article, even stylistic changes (see WP:OWN). No one has been able to point out an error with any of my edits, and no one has addressed the points I made above. Domer's "discussion" has been to call anything and everything "original research" (a concept he clearly does not understand), even the assertion that the Irish Republican Brotherhood was a brotherhood that sought to establish an Irish Republic (yeah, I was the first to come up with that!). Editors need to address specifics or stop reverting. -R. fiend (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, well let's leave all that rancour behind us now. The area of Irish Republicanism has been a bit fraught recently and we all need to stay even more cool than usual. So, without any further comments on the motives or attributes of other editors, is there any way we can accommodate the POV that Domer wishes us to? Within, as you say, the policy on undue weight? Even a minority point of view on something like this should perhaps be mentioned, with the right wording to reflect that it is a minority view, and of course with proper sources. What do you think? Is there a form of words we can live with? --John (talk) 07:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

John, were are the sources which contradict Neeson? If you read the book by Neeson, his comments which I added are in the context of the "Blood Sacrifice." Now no source = it dose not go in. undue weight, is not going to get the WP:OR into the article. If there is an alternative view, well just ensure its verifiable and reliably sourced. First that a military victory was planned. Second, that was their object. So John, just ask for sources, not comment or opinion or an analysis, just references. Improper synthesis of material, is not accepted. --Domer48 (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

John it is not the POV which I want to use! It's the POV that some editors want to add. Now they can canvass for support, but they will still need references. Now reference someone saying Neeson's is "a minority point of view." Do you even know how notable they are on this subject? John, references? Just keep asking for them. --Domer48 (talk) 09:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The editor R. fiend (talk) has said that he can just pull a book of a shelf and get refs then why has he not done this so far instead of putting in his own POV. BigDunc (talk) 09:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you see they way they introduce undue weight, and suggest Neeson is "a minority point of view," and can not back it up as a reference. They then try to use the quote from Neeson, having not read the book to back them up, improper synthesis of material. BigDunc just ask for sources, not comment, opinion or an analysis, just references. Improper synthesis of material, is not accepted. --Domer48 (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed changes

Since people seem to prefer discussing anything other than the issue at hand, I'll write out my proposed changes, numbered, so people can refute them individually or not at all. I'm just going to ignore any whining about "original research" unless someone can explain how at least one edit even remotely resembles original research.

1) First of all, I don't want to remove Domer's suggest that victory was never considered, I just want to frame it in the proper context. No edit I have made has ever removed that, even though it is contradicted by Florence O'Donoghue in Leaders and Men of the Easter Rising: Dublin 1916, and Kathleen Clarke in My Fight for Ireland's Freedom (not to mention "most books in the past 20 years"). I don't want to get the whole he-said/she-said thing going, as that's not good style, and poor style is becoming prevalent enough in this article. I propose to precede the paragraph that states:

According to historian Eoin Neeson, a plan involving a military victory was never a consideration; while the Leaders considered there would be some military success, an overall military victory was never an objective of the Rising. The IRB set out three objectives for the Rising: First, declare an Irish Republic, second, revitalise the sprit of the people and arouse separatist national fervour, and thirdly, claim a place at the post war peace conference.

with the sentence "While the overall aim of the IRB was the establishment of an Irish Republic, there is doubt that they intended to accomplish this with a single act of armed insurrection". This introduces the topic, and shows how, if victory was never a consideration, it is at least a counterintuitive hypothesis (that would make this one of the few military engagements in history where defeat was actually planned for 2 years ahead of time). No one can say this sentence is "original research". I can add a footnote to the first part of the sentence is need be, but to cite something as obvious as that is poor form. The second part is exactly what is put forward in the rest of the paragraph.

2) Removal (or at least moving) of the sentence "It was Devoy who in 1907 had asked Clarke to return to Ireland to help reorganise the IRB" from the paragraph on negotiations with Germany. This has nothing to do with these negotiations, and disrupts the flow of the paragraph. If it's to be included anywhere, it should be in the "Background" section.

3) Rephrasing the sentence "Since its inception in 1913, the Volunteers, whose formation was instigated by the IRB for precisely this purpose, had fellow IRB members elevated to officer rank whenever possible". Right now is states that "The Volunteers had fellow IRB members elevated..." when what's significant is that IRB members within the Volunteers had fellow IRB men elevated to officer. The use of the word "fellow" is somewhat confusing when preceded by "Volunteers" instead of "IRB". This can lead readers to think that elevation of IRB members was the official policy of the Volunteers, condoned by all the leaders, when this was certainly not the aim of their highest ranking officer, Eoin MacNeill (this can be supported by Michael Tierney's Eoin MacNeill, along with other books). I don't much care how the sentence is reworked, as long as it is stated that the IRB was working to have their fellow members promoted within the Volunteers. It's a pretty minor change.

The only other changes I am proposing right now are minor grammar and stylistic changes, which should not prove controversial to anyone who appreciates half-decent writing. I await refutations of anything above. -R. fiend (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

All that seems logical to me. No OR, no synthesis, no POV-pushing. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 15:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

First one is WP:OR and dose attempt to introduce improper synthesis of material. Provide a reference which states they planned for a military victory. That they achieved two out of three of their objectives, the third being out of their control, is evidenced by the election results in 1918, and the War of Independence in 1919. Second, remove it; I’ll replace it later in the origins section, in context. Third, the IRB members in Leadership positions within the Volunteers ensured that fellow members were placed in high ranking positions. Now get your head around the fact that the IRB from the start were behind the Volunteers. --Domer48 (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Aren't you both agreed that "the IRB members in leadership positions within the Volunteers ensured that fellow IRB members were placed in high ranking positions"? What on earth is the problem with stating that unambigously within the article?! BastunBaStun not BaTsun 15:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I know it sound obvious, but read the discussion, some want to play down the role of the IRB. --Domer48 (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course we're both agreed; it's a widely acknowledged fact. He even basically repeated back exactly what I said: "IRB members in Leadership positions within the Volunteers ensured that fellow members were placed in high ranking positions," the important distinction being IRB members within the Volunteers, rather than just The Volunteers as a whole. If he could add that sentence just as he stated it into the article I'd be happy. (unhelpful personal comments redacted by User:John) Looks like we're agreed on 2 of the 3 edits, and I still can't figure out what his beef with the first one is. -R. fiend (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, it looks like we are on the verge of a compromise then. --John (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Great! What now? If no one objects, I'll remove the statement about Devoy and Clarke and see if I can work the information elegantly into the Background section. I'll also see if I can take the sentence "IRB members in Leadership positions within the Volunteers ensured that fellow members were placed in high ranking positions," and include that without losing the information about the IRB instigating the formation of the Volunteers, or making the sentence entirely redundant. What about the first part? I really see no original research there at all. -R. fiend (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
One problem with the wording "IRB members in Leadership positions within the Volunteers ensured that fellow members were placed in high ranking positions" the IRB members of the Volunteers, were not all in leadership positions, nor was it only those in leadership that decided who was promoted, the rant and file also had a say in that decision, so remove the in Leadership positions and the wording would be fine.--Padraig (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the wording implies that all IRB men were in leadership positions, so that shouldn't be an issue. The second part is worth considering, though. I have to admit I'm not sure exactly how promotion worked. So you think "IRB members within the Volunteers ensured that fellow members were placed in high ranking positions," is good? I'm fine with that. However, it might not hurt to make clear that there were many IRB men in high positions, so these promotions were helped along by that, even if they didn't have complete control over this. That is probably a minor point, though. -R. fiend (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1st agreed upon edit made

I just made the first edit that there seems to be a general agreement on. The sentence about Devoy and Clarke has been removed from the paragraph on negotiations with Germany and rephrased and added to the Background section. Problems? Discuss... -R. fiend (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is protected, you have no right to abuse your admin tools. You were told by Luna not to edit it. --Domer48 (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
First of all, Luna is not God. Secondly, she didn't say don't edit it, she said "doing so could draw criticism." Since every edit I make seems to draw criticism, it hardly matters to me. Thirdly, do you suddenly have a problem with the edit (which is what you agreed to above), or do you just want to gripe? -R. fiend (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Domer48 on this whilst the article remains protected then you shouldn't edit it, any agreed changes should be made after the protection is lifted or done by an uninvolved admin.--Padraig (talk)

Does anyone have a problem with the edit? I'll revert if there is an actual problem. -R. fiend (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was a protected article and you used your admin tools after being asked not to. BigDunc (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have a problem with THE EDIT, not who made it? -R. fiend (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You were told not to edit this page, using your admin tools. --Domer48 (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
(User:John redacted unhelpful comment). -R. fiend (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with the edit, the issue is that even if there was a problem no other editor could fix it with the article protected, therefore either the protection is removed from the article, or an un-involved admin should be ask to make the changed agreed here first. This also protects you of being accused of abusing your admin powers.--Padraig (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I just said I have I dont know you and I have no problem with you but the edit was done using your admin tools after the admin who placed the PP on it asked you not to. Considering your actions today it would have been better to ask the admin to remove PP and then made your edit BigDunc (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't make heads or tails of that. If someone has a problem I'm willing to fix it myself. But this is an edit that was agreed on, so I made it in an effort to improve the article. The article is better off for it. So where's the problem? If someone else had done it would be a good edit, but since I did it's not? Makes no sense. Now unless someone has a legitimate issue here with the page in its current from let's move on and see if we can reach an overall agreement here. -R. fiend (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Luna protected the page to allow discussion, you were told not to edit it. This discussion is not over(User:John redacted unhelpful comment). --Domer48 (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
You say see if we can reach an overall agreement here so you admit no consensus was reached before you made your edit.BigDunc (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Everybody, remember what I said. Keep it focussed on what we are doing. There will be no commentary on editors' behaviour or supposed motivation here. There are other places to take that to.
Policy states "Administrators should not edit pages that are protected due to a content dispute, unless there is consensus for the change, or the change is unrelated to the dispute." So, does that edit reflect consensus here? If not, why not? Please can nobody else edit the protected page while this discussion is under way. Thanks. --John (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. There is a consensus (or at least there was, I suppose people might be backpedalling now). So where is the issue? -R. fiend (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no backpeddling, the edit is fine in principal, the wording could be made clearer on the last change though, but that is a minor detail. The problem is that the exact wording should be agree on any changes here first, then only when agreement is reached should the change be made, but by an un-involved admin whilst the article is protected.--Padraig (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree with that, Padraig. --John (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

(User:John redacted unhelpful comments)

The real problem though, is changes were also made to the preceeding sentence. Not only should the editor not have made the edit, but to also make an additional change to reflect their opinion, makes it all totally unacceptable. --Domer48 (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course changes were made to the previous sentence. You can't cut and paste one sentence into another paragraph without taking into account the sentences around it. Doing that is why we had that irrelevant sentence there in the first place. We're trying to make the writing decent as well as factually correct. Now, can somebody please state clearly and succinctly anything that is wrong with the sections in question as they currently stand?!?! If not then let's stop griping and see if we can work out the rest of the controversies. It's starting to seem to me like people would rather complain than actually improve this article. Let's get on with it. It seems we have general agreement on the 2nd point, can we move on and try to address this? -R. fiend (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


I agree. I will ask R. fiend nicely if he will consider reverting the edit meantime. --John (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There, I reverted at least for now, so everyone can quitcher bellyachin'. The edit is in the history, so using that as a reference please someone explain what was incorrect or POV about that edit, using specific facts. If no one can do that I'm going to assume the edit is A Number One superawesome fantastomatic and put it back sometime. I mean, really, this should be a completely uncontroversial edit of the sort thats made thousands of times a day without further comment. It's purely stylistic; I can't see what all the fuss is. Someone point out the issue. -R. fiend (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. Please do not put it back in unless a clear and unambiguous consensus is reached here. --John (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'll try but I can't entirely promise that; not if people continue to make vague statements of disapproval but remain unhelpful in suggestions of how to improve the article. The floor is open. Those who think there is a problem, explain exactly what is wrong with this. -R. fiend (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Edit proposal

This is the edit I'm proposing. If you have a problem with it speak up. If not, don't complain when this edit is made. -R. fiend (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Patience is a virtue, give editors a chance to discuss the issue first, some may not be online at present.--Padraig (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Domer's online. He's been editing for the past several hours. Now I'm not going to make that change right away, but I'm not going to allow a pocket veto by people refusing to discuss these "issues" they evidently have. -R. fiend (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, as long as you're here, I believe you mentioned the phrasing could be improved. What's your suggestion? -R. fiend (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

One line to be removed, and replaced later by me. The line preciding it, no. And you will not be editing this page as you are involved in a dispute, no admin tools on this one. --Domer48 (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a game. If you have a problem with the edit, say what it is. If not, enough. -R. fiend (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's all give it 24 hours and come back. If there are no objections we can then implement R. fiend's suggestions. If there are, please let them be specific and solution-focussed, ie no "I don't like it" type comments, but instead suggestions on how we could compromise to make the article better. --John (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
May I suggest a compromise? Once exact verbiage has been agreed to, submit the {{editprotected}} request here on the talk page, and let's let an admin who HASN'T done anything on this page (not John, not myself, and not R. fiend) make the edit, that way there's no cause for misunderstanding, ok? SirFozzie (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. That was my plan all along. The protecting admin could do it; the protection could feasibly be lifted at the same time, if the edit war is over? --John (talk) 04:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
That sounds good to me, as long as we get the specific phrasing worked out ahead of time, which can be sort of complex. This isn't necessarily just a matter of cutting one sentence from somewhere and pasting it elsewhere. Here are my proposals: 1) the edit already made, which I self-reverted. 2) Placing "While the overall aim of the IRB was the establishment of an Irish Republic, there is doubt that they intended to accomplish this with a single act of armed insurrection" at the beginning of the paragraph that starts with "According to historian Eoin Neeson, a plan involving a military victory was never a consideration". 3) This is more complex, as it would involve rephrasing another sentence or two, or risk losing some information that others seem to want to remain in the article. Anyway The statement "IRB members in Leadership positions within the Volunteers ensured that fellow members were placed in high ranking positions" (maybe phrased slightly better? "Positions" appearing twice in the same sentence could be improved on) should replace "Since its inception in 1913, the Volunteers, whose formation was instigated by the IRB for precisely this purpose, had fellow IRB members elevated to officer rank whenever possible" for reasons stated above. However, some editors seem to want the the first part of the sentence retained, which would involve some reworking of the overall phrasing. I'm open to suggestions there. -R. fiend (talk) 05:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the IRB was being reorganised and reinvigorated. In 1907, John Devoy sent Thomas Clarke, a former prisoner, from the USA back to Ireland to help in these efforts. The sentence highlighted can be removed. As can be seen here, they removed more than that. --Domer48 (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Now you want the sentence removed entirely? Before you were insisting that it be included in the Background section. Make up your mind. Fine, remove any mention from the article of Devoy sending Clarke to Ireland in 1907. It's not important to the article anyway; it's more relevant to the articles John Devoy, Tom Clarke, and Irish Republican Brotherhood. So we're agreed to that? So to clarify, for the first edit, the article will stay as it is right now, except that the sentence "It was Devoy who in 1907 had asked Clarke to return to Ireland to help reorganise the IRB" will be removed entirely. Agreed? What about the rest? -R. fiend (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you have a problem understanding what editors write, I will repeat it again for you; "First one is WP:OR and dose attempt to introduce improper synthesis of material. Provide a reference which states they planned for a military victory. That they achieved two out of three of their objectives, the third being out of their control, is evidenced by the election results in 1918, and the War of Independence in 1919. Second, remove it; I’ll replace it later in the origins section, in context. Third, the IRB members in Leadership positions within the Volunteers ensured that fellow members were placed in high ranking positions. Now get your head around the fact that the IRB from the start were behind the Volunteers. --Domer48 (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)"

And since you must have forgot, replace this sentence;

"Meanwhile, the IRB, reorganised by Thomas Clarke, a former prisoner, and Seán MacDermott, continued to plan, not for limited home rule under the British Crown, but for an independent Irish republic."

Now is that clear enough, or should we slow the discussion down for you. --Domer48 (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Second part first. My version includes this: "Meanwhile, the IRB was being reorganised and reinvigorated. In 1907, John Devoy sent Thomas Clarke, a former prisoner, from the USA back to Ireland to help in these efforts. He and like-minded men like Seán MacDermott continued to plan, not for limited home rule under the British Crown, but for an independent Irish republic." What is the difference, in terms of content, between that and "Meanwhile, the IRB, reorganised by Thomas Clarke, a former prisoner, and Seán MacDermott, continued to plan, not for limited home rule under the British Crown, but for an independent Irish republic"? What information is lacking? None. Your attitude that slight changes in style are anathema makes it clear that you are just trying to be argumentative and disruptive. Desist.
As for the first part, you're just making the same vague accusations as always, completely unbacked up by anything (this time you actually just cut and pasted an earlier rant). My edit "dose" not introduce original research. Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that stating the Irish Republican Brotherhood's aim was the establishment of an Irish Republic is something I came up with myself? The statement about the election of 1918 is a good example of your method of avoiding the issue by bringing entirely irrelevant information into a discussion. And I don't need a reference stating that they ever aimed for a military victory (which I provided, anyway) because the article doesn't say that. It merely shows that the hypothesis that no one ever considered the possibility that they might ever achieve military victory is a view supported by a single author, and is not backed up by literally dozens of other books on the topic. If it were an established, uncontroversial fact, it would be included in every book on the subject. It's not. Your own source says quite plainly that it contradicts most other writing on the subject. so I ask again, what specifically is your problem? -R. fiend (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's something for you, Domer48: "It is too simplistic to dismiss it [the Rising] as a hopeless blood sacrifice ... As Michael Laffan points out, 'few of the conspirators actually sought martyrdom and they hoped and planned for a successful revolt'." (Diarmaid Ferriter, The Transformation of Ireland: 1900-2000, London: Profile, 2004, p. 142, ISBN 1 86197 307 1, citing, in part, Michael Laffan, The Resurrection of Ireland: The Sinn Féin Party, 1916–1923, Cambridge, 1999, pp. 37, ISBN 978 0521650731.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damac (talk • contribs) 19:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It was successful, whats your point?


“undoubtedly the initiative and the impulse to the series of meetings leading up to the public inauguration of the Volunteers came from the IRB. It was Hobson’s guarantee that he could provide a nucleus of reliable men to launch the movement that persuaded O’Rahilly to go to MacNeill with the project. Easter 1916: The Irish Rebellion, Charles Townshend, 2005, page 41

A view indorsed by

  • The IRA, Tim Pat Coogan, 1970, page 33
  • The Irish Volunteers 1913-1915, 1963,F. X. Martin page 24 (cited)
  • The Easter Rising, Michael Foy & Brian Barton, 2004, page 7
  • Myths from Easter 1916, Eoin Neeson, 2007, page 79
  • Victory of Sinn Féin, P.S. O’Hegarty, page 9-10
  • The Path to Freedom, Michael Collins, 1922, page 54
  • Irish Nationalism, Sean Cronin, 1981, page 105
  • A History of Ireland Under the Union, P. S. O’Hegarty, page 669
  • 1916: Easter Rising, Pat Coogan, page 50
  • Revolutionary Woman, Kathleen Clarke, 1991, page 44
  • The Bold Fenian Men, Robert Kee, 1976, 203
  • The IRB: The Irish Republican Brotherhood from the Lwague to Sinn Féin, Owen McGee, 2005, 353-354

Now get the books out, because judging by your long winded tombs, Empty vessels do make the most noise? Some more than others. --Domer48 (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the topic. Make relevant posts or none at all. -R. fiend (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
And WTF is a "long winded tomb"? -R. fiend (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I was responding to the I have a PhD. --Domer48 (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What? That's not even a sentence. Say something useful or quit wasting everyone's time. -R. fiend (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I’m glad you have learned to be brief. This article will be edited according to wiki policies. You put something in, you have to back it up. Look at your posts, talk about wasting time, please! --Domer48 (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you have given no specific objections to the proposed edits, I'm going to have to assume you have no problem with them. Fine with me. Consensus is reached. -R. fiend (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

"Meanwhile, the IRB, reorganised by Thomas Clarke, a former prisoner, and Seán MacDermott, continued to plan, not for limited home rule under the British Crown, but for an independent Irish republic"? reorganised by Thomas Clarke, stays, because that is what he did. I will also place a number of references for this. The most important references being the McGarrity papers, and the re-establishing of links between the Clan and the IRB. Clarke was the link. --Domer48 (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Finally! Something specific. You could have saved a hell of a lot of time by saying that, I don't know, a few days ago. The problem with that edit is it isn't entirely accurate. Prior to Clarke's return to Ireland, the IRB was already undergoing reorganization under Denis McCullough and Bulmer Hobson (source: FSL Lyons Ireland Since the Famine, to name one). Clarke was a very important player in this reorganization, but not the only one, so it shouldn't be stated he was. If you think his role isn't stressed enough the way I phrased it, we can try to reword to both of our likings. However, as this article is about the Easter Rising, not the state of the IRB at the turn of the century, I'd rather save all the specific details for the IRB article itself (as well as the articles on Clarke, Devoy, and the Clan na Gael). -R. fiend (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Afarid not, Denis McCullough and Bulmer Hobson were mainly involved in the reorganization in the north of the country. I would use some of the references above for that. Clarks role will be full explored, but as far as the background goes, it's important. Otherwise we will have one article saying one thing and one saying another, a bit like the Irish Volunteers. Like I have said, in my last post, primary sources will be used. --Domer48 (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

So if it's in the north it doesn't count? They were active in replacing the previous older, unispired leadership with a new generation of younger, active members (we should probably have an article on the Dungannon Clubs if we don't already). Why can't we just say Clarke went to Ireland to help reorganize the IRB? That's what the article currently says anyway. And again, I'd rather not get into the details in this article as it's out of the scope. It should be dealt with briefly here and in more deatil in the IRB article. -R. fiend (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Tom Clarke took over the IRB, and effected a reorganization geared towards the Rising. It was Thomas Clarke, and Seán MacDermott who became the driving force behind the IRB, and it is dealt with briefly here and will be in more deatil in the IRB article. --Domer48 (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, you're getting away from the topic at hand. But yes, that is correct, Clarke and MacDermott effectively took control of the IRB (while the office of President was never in either of their hands, they didn't let that stop them). That doesn't change the fact that the reinvigorization and reorganization of the IRB was begun before Clarke arrived. Therefore the article should not state or imply that Clarke alone carried this out, though it should not downplay his role either. Clarke and MacDermott formed the Military Council and basically bypassed the IRB Supreme Council and President, making them the real driving force behind the Rising, but that is much later. We're talking about 1907 and before. -R. fiend (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh were talking about 1907 not 1916, the year that Clarke arrived back in Ireland. Well that is when the process of the take over began, and Clarks reorganization of the IRB 1907. Since this is the Rising Article, I thought you did not want that much detail. Safe to say, my suggestion is still sound, and we have the sources to back it up. Not to worrie, I will expand the IRB article and all the Rising related articles based on the list of sources we are developing.--Domer48 (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'm starting to see where the issue is; we're talking about "reorganiztion" in two different ways. You're talking about Clarke's (and MacDermott's) effective takeover of the IRB that eventually led to the Rising. I'm talking about a previous reorganization that was begun before Clarke arrived in Ireland. By 1900 or so the IRB had become a stagnant organization of old men who would rather drink than forward the drive for a republic (I'm paraphrasing here, but this is basically what Lyons says). Along came the likes of McCullough and Hobson (with MacDermott involved as well, I believe, I'll check more carefully when I get home and have the books before me) who established the Dungannon Clubs, replaced the ineffective leadership with motivated (mostly younger) men, and got the organization on its feet again. As this is occurring, Clarke arrives, bringing with him both the drive and the experience they need and within a few years the IRB is again an active organization. This much Clarke played a role in, but did not start.
I think the "reorganization" you're talking about is the consolidation of power within the IRB by Clarke and MacDermott. This was gradual and occurred (obviously) after 1907. I'm not sure specifically what Devoy had in mind in sending Clarke back (I'll have to look over the sources), but if he said "take control of the IRB for yourself" I'd like to see a source for that. This was years before the Volunteers, so certainly no one had thoughts of a rising along the lines of what they would eventually start planning in 1914. So to say Clarke "reorganized" the IRB is misleading, and neglects the roles played by others before his arrival. -R. fiend (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

How detailed do you want the backgroung to be? Please don't mind what Lyons says, I deal with that in the IRB Article. Now this is accurate "Meanwhile, the IRB, reorganised by Thomas Clarke, a former prisoner, and Seán MacDermott, continued to plan, not for limited home rule under the British Crown, but for an independent Irish republic." Lets recap "What information is lacking? None. Your attitude that slight changes in style are anathema makes it clear that you are just trying to be argumentative and disruptive. Desist." Now that was you not me, " What is the difference, in terms of content." Again you not me. --Domer48 (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that, as I said, is that "reorganised by Tom Clarke" says (or at least heavily implies) that the reorganization was solely the work of Clarke. I've demonstrated (backed up with sources) that he was only one of several parties involved, and the start of the reorganization preceded his arrival. My phrasing (and the phrasing that is currently in the article, albeit in the wrong section) says that he helped in this. What's wrong with that? It is more accurate and doesn't go into excessive detail. If you want to use a word other than "helped" we'll work on that, but the phrasing should not give Clarke all the credit. This is quite a minor issue, and I think we're spending to much time on it, though I am relieved that we can finally talk about specifics here. -R. fiend (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to be reasonable but it is geeting me no were. You said it was just a minor edit on the Admin notice board, and put down an incorrect edit summary, an edit you had no right to make because you were warned not to, implied that it was an edit of know real consequence, you have proven your own guilt. You knew what you were doing when you made the edit. You did not just remove one line, you changed the whole context of another section. --Domer48 (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now we're taking steps backwards. Let's try to focus on what the edits actually say. I made the edit because it appeared that's what was agreed to on this page (I invited anyone who had an issue to say what it was, and all I got was comments about how I was way out of line and whatever; until this morning no one cited anything wrong with the edit itself, but I reverted it nevertheless). "Remove it" you said (I did) "I’ll replace it later in the origins section, in context." I replaced it for you because, to be honest, your writing style has been less than stellar (I'm not the only one to point this out). You've had ample time to put forth what exactly was wrong with the way I worked it back into the section, but it took you until this morning to do so, and even now your argument lacks cohesion. The removed sentence said "It was Devoy who in 1907 had asked Clarke to return to Ireland to help reorganise the IRB" (emphasis mine). What I put back into the earlier section was "the IRB was being reorganised and reinvigorated. In 1907, John Devoy sent Thomas Clarke, a former prisoner, from the USA back to Ireland to help in these efforts" (my emphasis again). This clarifies Clarke's role, and states what was already stated in the article. I guess the point is, do you contest the assertion that Clarke was not the sole "reorganiser" of the IRB? If you don't then the article should not imply that he was. If you do, back it up. The change is very minor, and easily verified. -R. fiend (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You have told lies, and hung yourself with your own edits. The more you lie, the longer your posts become. --Domer48 (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

How very unhelpful. So what exactly are these lies? And do answer the question: do you contest the assertion that Clarke was not the sole "reorganiser" of the IRB? -R. fiend (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarke was vital in re-opening the link between the IRB and the Clann in America through which funds and other aid could be channelled, so his role was major.--Padraig (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't deny that, though I'm not prepared to rank the contributions of everyone involved (nor should anyone venture on such a subjective endeavor). And he was not the only one involved. It seems this edit comes down to one word: "helped". Did Clarke reorganize the IRB on his own, or did he play a substantial role? Sources seem to say the latter (no one has refuted them), so "helped" is more accurate, as the other phrasing implies it was just him and MacDermott. If "helped" isn't a strong enough word, someone suggest another. I'm all ears. -R. fiend (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

“Thomas Clarke went to New York, but he turned to Ireland in 1907 because foreseeing a European war he decided that a time was coming when John Mitchel’s doctrine ‘that Ireland’s opportunity would come when England was in difficulty’ might have a chance to prove itself.” The IRA, Tim Pat Coogan, 1984, page 31

“In 1907 Tom Clarke had returned from New York to begin reorganizing the organization, by then largely fraternal and futile.” The Secret Army: The IRA, Rv Ed, J Bowyer Bell 1997, page 9

But as time went on some of them became united in their impatience. Griffith believed in giving Home Rule a chance but influence began to pass to the IRB with its strong insurrectionary tradition (exemplified by veteran Fenian dynamiter Tom Clarke, who had returned from America in 1907). The Provisional IRA, Patrick Bishop & Eamonn Mallie, 1988, page 23

“It is clear that without the help of the Clan-na-Gael the IRB would not have experienced a brief new spring in the twentieth century and there would have been no Easter Week 1916…’the advocates of early development and good management’ (as McCartan called the young militants) increased their numbers on the Supreme Council and found a powerful ally in Tom Clarke. In November 1911, McCartan told McGarrity that the opportunities for militancy were great:’. . . if Home Rule does not come I believe parliamentarianism is dead and damned and so much the better…Later Tom Clarke became the communication link between the Clan and the IRB.” The McGarrity Papers: revelations of the Irish revolutionary movement in Ireland and America 1900 – 1940, Sean Cronin, 1972, page 16, 30

F. S. L. Lyons, the most authoritative of modern Irish historians, labelled the years 1903—7 ‘the watershed’. This is an acute and vital perception. Lyons listed a series of ‘apparently random events’ in 1907 including the introduction and withdrawal of the government’s Irish Council Bill, the resignation of C. J. Dolan from the Irish Parliamentary Party (IPP) …the return of the exiled Fenian dynamiter Thomas Clarke to Ireland,…Lyons remarked, these occurrences probably seemed disconnected to contemporaries, but to the historian they combine to suggest ‘a heightened temper, a sharper tone in Irish life, which foreshadows the onset of a period altogether different in character from what had gone before’. Townshend continues “the return of Tom Clarke, was the most crucial to the evolution of separatism. Clarke’s explicit reason was to prevent a repeat of the Boer War experience, when England next became involved in a major war. The prospect of a war between Britain and Germany was widely discussed in the USA, and this time Irish republicans must take the opportunity.” Easter 1916: The Irish rebellion, Charles Townshend, 2005, page 18

Thanks for that Pádraig, but they think they know it all, don't waste your time. Now they used the F. S. L. Lyons, shows they did not read it it. The same with F. X. Martin, I included it with the list of references. Now the sentences is to be left in. These are the references. So you lied when you said you had agreement. You lied when you said you just cleaned it up, you changed the whole context. Now I put the information in and I have backed it up, all you have done is waste editors time. --Domer48 (talk) 13:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Again, all you've established is that you read books, but do not understand them (something you made abundantly clear at the Tom Clarke talk page). How does that contradict what I said? It doesn't. All you do is quote random texts, regardless of what they actually say, and labor under some delusion that because you've quoted something, everything you say must be right. It's incredibly tiresome. Grow up. -R. fiend (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I have illustrated that you have not got a clue, now the references are there, it stays as is. Anyone reading this tread, knows what a backward view you have of the subject, and that is why the discussion has moved on without you. Now if you have no references to back up your narrow opinion, and can only spout personal comments about an editor who has shown you up as clueless on this subject, all that remains for you is cheap point scoring. Now untill you scrape the bottom of another barrell, there is not much more left to discuss, opinion-references=it dose not get taken out. --Domer48 (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving on

Okay. It's been 24 hours more or less, and no one has given any objections to any edits that amount to anything more than "I don't like it." Time to end the obstructionism and start editing. Can we get a neutral admin to do this? -R. fiend (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No not yet.--Padraig (talk) 10:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I say go ahead.

Discussion is on preceeding thread. Editor can not support their claim to remove text. However, there are mulitiple references to support it remaining. --Domer48 (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

I've tried discussing my proposed edits, and while some editors have agreed with them, Domer keeps being obstructive. His endless string of personal attacks, non-sequiturs, red herrings, whining, bullying, and incoherent rants is tiresome, to say the least. I am not alone in holding this opinion. Domer is taking the attitude that he owns this article, and even attempts to improve his poor writing are met with hostility and reversions. Several days of argument have arisen from a dispute over what amounts to a single word: "helped" (did Clarke help reorganize the IRB, or did he do it alone?). I'm not going to go through this with every word that needs to be changed. This is a guy who thinks that a source saying Tom Clarke commanded men during Easter week means he held the rank of Commander in the Volunteers. This is a guy who thinks that because the IRB encouraged the creation of the Volunteers, and played a role in organizing some of its earliest meetings, that the IRB alone "created" the Volunteers. This a guy who thinks that because the IRB attempted to "secure" control of the Volunteers, that means they had control of them all along. It's disgraceful that his puerile behavior can prevent needed improvements from being made to this article for so long.

So here's my proposal, we make the changes I proposed, which have been endorsed by other editors (if some of the wording needs tweaking we can easily work that out). Then, if Domer still objects, he can argue for his version incessantly here on the talk page. If he can put forward a detailed convincing, relevant, and coherent argument for his version, there should be no trouble reverting back, or finding compromise phrasing that suits everyone. I just think his obstructionist tactics have gone on long enough. At this point he's filibustering. This is Wikipedia, not the Senate. -R. fiend (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thing is, no one agrees with you! That you can not provide references has reduced you to ranting. Now I have provided the references, plenty of them! No one on Wiki is interested in my opinion, all wiki asks for is verifiable and relilably sourced references. Now I can tell you are becoming irrational and starting to make yourself look silly, so with the season that is in it, I can only offer you the charity of my silence, as to continue to engage you only prompts a response. Now, no editors have endorsed your proposal, (except your buddie may), and telling lies is telling on you. --Domer48 (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Two references have been provided on the Tom Clarke article to show that he did in fact hold rank in the rising, therefore Domer48 has been proved correct.--Padraig (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I’ve also provided a number of references that state that the IRB, were behind the formation of the Volunteers, one even has a reference to January 1913], months before the article the North Began, therefore I have been proved correct. --Domer48 (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Padraig, just in case you were not aware;

My edit is a view indorsed by:

  • Easter 1916: The Irish Rebellion, Charles Townshend, 2005, page 41
  • The IRA, Tim Pat Coogan, 1970, page 33
  • The Irish Volunteers 1913-1915,F. X. Martin 1963, page 24
  • The Easter Rising, Michael Foy & Brian Barton, 2004, page 7
  • Myths from Easter 1916, Eoin Neeson, 2007, page 79
  • Victory of Sinn Féin, P.S. O’Hegarty, page 9-10
  • The Path to Freedom, Michael Collins, 1922, page 54
  • Irish Nationalism, Sean Cronin, 1981, page 105
  • A History of Ireland Under the Union, P. S. O’Hegarty, page 669
  • 1916: Easter Rising, Pat Coogan, page 50
  • Revolutionary Woman, Kathleen Clarke, 1991, page 44
  • The Bold Fenian Men, Robert Kee, 1976, page 203
  • The IRB: The Irish Republican Brotherhood from the League to Sinn Féin, Owen McGee, 2005, 353-354

R. fiend (talk) thinks they know better. --Domer48 (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

More red herrings. The discussion at hand is not about who formed the Volunteers. (It's been established that the IRB played a significant role, but did not single-handedly bring about their existence. That discussion belongs on the Volunteers talk page anyway, not here.) Nor is it about Clarke's rank (see the Tom Clarke talk page for that). Does anyone have anything intelligent to say about this article? -R. fiend (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Less of the insults towards other editors, sources have been provided to prove the issue here, you are attemting to dismiss these because they don't suit your viewpoint on the issue.--Padraig (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ye, your better of not editing it, since you have not got a clue. Just because you refuse to accept the references, dose not change a thing. It is obvious you just want to make a point. I suggest you stop. --Domer48 (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You have provided enough reasons now for me to strongly suggest you stop. --Domer48 (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyone have anything intelligent to say? -R. fiend (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I want to say that I agree 100% with you. This constant wheeling out of WP guidelines (POINT, HOAX, OR, RS etc.) to shout down rational discussion is harrassment of the worst kind. It has driven me off Wikipedia, and it is sickening for me to come back and read now. These are people that went to ArbCom complaining about harrassment from "British" editors, and now they are doing it to their own. ArbCom laid down recommendations on civility, and maybe it is time for an admin to review this behaviour in the light of the ArbCom ruling. Scolaire (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

R. fiend (talk) We should just stop feeding you, and hope you go away. --Domer48 (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Domer48 (talk) has provided more than enough refs just because it doesn't suit your POV thats your problem. BigDunc (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

And that kind of sniping does not move the discussion along at all! Scolaire (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

So you refute all the references as well, thats fine. A dab hand at the oul game as well, what do you suggest, we drop all our policies, just because one editor can not back up their opinion. As to R. fiend (talk) nationality, I could not care less. Now, if you want to contribute to the discussion, put forward sources, that refute the multitude that have been provided. And don’t ply or peddle any more of the claims you just made. --Domer48 (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I refute nothing. I no longer have any interest in the minute details of the article. I am concerned only with bullying behaviour, and the means by which it can be dealt with. And I will ply and peddle any claims without asking leave of you.

(and don't bother to respond. I've said my piece and I won't be back. I'm on Wikibreak again) Scolaire (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Scolaire (talk) if you are so concerned with civility open a RfC, because on this issue, you have my 100% support. No editor should feel complelled to leave, but just don't be slective in your comments. --Domer48 (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Say what specific facts that I wish to add need sources, and I'll provide some. Most of my edits involve rephrasing and clarifying what's already in the article, so it's kind of hard to provide "sources" for such changes. I don't refute the sources; the problem is, the sources don't refute me
Let's review this proposal one more time:
1) "While the overall aim of the IRB was the establishment of an Irish Republic, [do you really need a source for this? If you do, any of the fine works you keep posting on this page will do] there is doubt that they intended to accomplish this with a single act of armed insurrection."
Diarmaid Ferriter, Florence O'Donoghue, and others (including 20 years worth of writing on the subject) say some did hold this aim at one point. Eoin Neeson (and apparently no one else) say they did not. Hence there is, by definition, "doubt". (By Easter Monday, at least, few if any had any hope for military victory, but that is not what is specifically addressed here.)
2) "Meanwhile, the IRB was being reorganised and reinvigorated. In 1907, John Devoy sent Thomas Clarke, a former prisoner, from the USA back to Ireland to help in these efforts. He and like-minded men like Seán MacDermott continued to plan, not for limited home rule under the British Crown, but for an independent Irish republic."
One at a time: "Meanwhile, the IRB was being reorganised and reinvigorated." Lyons states this clearly. McCullough began this undertaking prior to 1907 (if you have problems with the specific words used, say so). "In 1907, John Devoy sent Thomas Clarke, a former prisoner, from the USA back to Ireland to help in these efforts." You've cited this numerous times above. If the word "help" downplays his integral role in this, I'm entirely open to rephrasing. I've stated this before and no one has suggested anything. "He and like-minded men like Seán MacDermott continued to plan, not for limited home rule under the British Crown, but for an independent Irish republic." This is what the article already says, and can be backed up by any source you provided.
3) Working this into the text: "the IRB members in Leadership positions within the Volunteers ensured that fellow members were placed in high ranking positions." These are your exact words, cut and pasted from above. The only questions here are whether "in Leadership positions" should remain (Padraig points out that it wasn't only the leadership who had say in promotions), and exactly how to work this in without losing the rest of the sentence it replaces (the prose could use a bit of polishing too).
Now, show exactly where anything stated above is incorrect or questionable, and we'll have something to talk about. If not, enough talk about "lies", "orignial research", and "sources". -R. fiend (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • 1) Cite a source which states that they planned for a military victory.
  • 2) The sources state quite clearly, that he reorganised the IRB and that is why he came home in 1907.
  • 3) "the IRB members within the Volunteers ensured that fellow members were placed in high ranking positions." No problem!

--Domer48 (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Some progress. First of all, I did cite sources (Damac helped out, thanks Damac), which is irrelevant anyway, as we're not saying they did, only that there is no consensus among sources that they did not. Prove that this utter dismissal of any consideration of victory was more than the opinion of Neeson (and maybe another person or two). I'm not trying to remove Neeson's assertion, just making it clear that that scholars are not unanimous on that. Secondly, I never said Clarke didn't (nor do my edits to the article), only that others were involved too. But if you like, I'll try some phrasing that gives Clarke more credit. Give me a little while, I'm pretty busy the next couple days. Third, good, I'll run some phrasing by you, as it will involve reworking another sentence or two if we want to make it fit in elegantly. -R. fiend (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I think yous are neglecting the Proclaimation in this assessment of Clarke, many historians now believe that Clarke and not Pearse was the Head of the Provisional Government, this can be seen on reading the proclaimation where Clarke is the first signatory, that would have made him the Supreme Commander of the rising.--Padraig (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Are we talking about Clarke's rank during the Rising or his role in 1907? The former is best left to the Tom Clarke talk page, as it isn't covered here. I'm all for further exploring his exact role in that article. There is certainly a case to be made that in the "Provisional Government" Clarke held a higher political position than Pearse (or at least should have), but I don't think there's any doubt that Pearse was technically Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, even if he left most of the Command to Connolly. In any case, that is about political rather than military office, and it is misleading if not downright incorrect to give Clarke a military rank based on that. (Furthermore there is a case to be made that Denis McCullough, as President of the IRB, had the rights to the office of President based on the IRB Constitution, but that's another matter altogether). The "Provisional Government" hardly held any power outside of the GPO, so the point is rather academic, in any case.
As for this article, what we're discussing is the situation 9 years before the Proclamation. Looking over my proposed edit, it does seem to downplay Clarke's role bringing the IRB from a washed-up relic to an organization that brought about the biggest insurrection in more than a century. I'm willing to add a clause that makes this much more clear, but am still opposed to any phrasing that denies the earlier contributions of McCullough and the others. -R. fiend (talk) 17:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
R. Fiend, you seem determined to undermine the role that Clarke played in both the reorganising of IRB and the rising, why?.--Padraig (talk) 00:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to undermine anything. I'll readily admit that Clarke was the single most important figure in bringing about the rising, and reorganizing the IRB. It's just that he was not the only one involved. The fact is, before Clarke arrived in Ireland, important changes were afoot in the IRB (sources back me up on this) and they should not be completely dismissed. As of now, Clarke and MacDermott are the only ones mentioned by name, which is fine, but I don't see what the problem is with acknowledging the roles of others. If people want to insert language trumpeting Clarke's integral role, I'm all for it (within reason), but it is incorrect to state or imply that Clarke and MacDermott did everything themselves. And I don't it's splitting hairs to say so. -R. fiend (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Nobody is implying that Clarke and MacDermott did everything, but they played the main role in ensuring the reorganisation took place, we can hardy name every officer in the volunteers/IRB that carried out their part in ensuring that it happened. And prior to Clarkes return the IRB had stagmented, it had no link to the Clann which was vital to ensure the IRB plans for a rising could come about.--Padraig (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Saying two people did something implies that they were the ones who did it. By no means do I wish to mention everyone involved by name, and saying "men such as" does not attempt to do so (though if I had to name names, I'd mention McCullough, Hobson, and maybe MacCartan, in addition to Clarke and MacDermott). Sources clearly state that while the IRB had stagnated, efforts to remedy that preceded Clarke's arrival in Ireland, though his arrival in 1907 gave a major boost to these efforts. I am very much in favor of this article making it very clear that Clarke was the person most responsible for the Rising (along with MacDermott), as too much credit is generally given to Pearse at their expense. But the article should not dismiss the contributions of others in getting the ball rolling in the previous years. I don't think this article should go into the details, but adding 3 words is hardly doing so. -R. fiend (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, your three words changes the whole context of the sentence, and dosent add anything to the article.--Padraig (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"while the IRB had stagnated, efforts to remedy that preceded Clarke's arrival in Ireland." Would love to see the reference for that. Hobson arrived in Dublin in 1908. Both himself and MacCartan had done much to build Sinn Féin, nationally, not the IRB. The old leadership of the IRB was still in place when Clarke arrived, and it was Clarke who provoked the Council, over Irish Freedom in 1911. Where the IRB planning anything in the event of a War, prior to 1907, no. When Clarke arrived, he knew what needed to be done, and set about doing it, with the support of the Clan. --Domer48 (talk) 11:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


"I am very much in favor of this article making it very clear that Clarke was the person most responsible for the Rising (along with MacDermott), as too much credit is generally given to Pearse at their expense...I'd rather not get into the details in this article as it's out of the scope. It should be dealt with briefly here and in more deatil in the IRB article. -R. fiend. The sentence in the article states "Meanwhile, the IRB, reorganised by Thomas Clarke,[2] a former prisoner, and Seán MacDermott, continued to plan, not for limited home rule under the British Crown, but for an independent Irish republic. [1]" Now who came back to Ireland with an agenda? Who reorganised the IRB, to suit that agenda? Who recuited and elevated members of the council? Who geared up the IRB for the Rising? All of these questions are answered in this one sentence. This one sentence is also referenced to the hilt. --Domer48 (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, the reference is Lyons Ireland Since the Famine. I'm away for the holidays and don't have any books with me, but I think around page 314 or so it goes into the details (if you have the book, look for Denis McCullough in the index). It goes over the efforts, largely of McCullough, to replace the previous IRB leadership, which I believe began around 1905 or 1906 (I don't remember the details right now). I never said it happened in Dublin; the IRB was a national organization.
I think what is getting mixed up here is the reorganization/revitalization of he IRB and the planning for the rising. While they are connected, they are not the same thing. Here's a general timeline as I see it:
  • circa 1900: the IRB is a nominal group of unmotivated old men who haven't done anything in 30 years (an oversimplification, but this is the general idea).
  • circa 1905-6: McCullough is fed up with this situation; he, Hobson, and MacDermott, oust some of the leaders, start actively recruiting, and start to get the ball rolling. At this time I know of no evidence that they had any specific plans for a rising, and I'm not saying there were. That came later. But some important groundwork is being laid in this time (not necessarily in Dublin, but that isn't the issue). This can be referenced in Lyons.
  • 1907: Clarke arrives and things really get rolling. Before long he and MacDermott basically ran the Executive. There would be no practical plans for a rising for a little while (though no doubt there was some theoretical discussion), because until the founding of the Volunteers they lacked the practical means for any sort of armed conflict beyond a handful of guys with revolvers. But in a few years all that would change.
This is all about the IRB as an organization, and not about the Rising years later. That was all Clarke. He and MacDermott ran the Executive. He formed the Military Council that basically usurped the Supreme Council, cutting them out of the picture. If he sought the position, he would have been "President of the Republic". Anyway, as I've said, I don't want to go into the details of the pre-1907 stuff (that's for other articles), but I think a few words indicating there were important contributions by others is significant, if for no other reason than to make sure it doesn't seem to be contradicted in other articles. -R. fiend (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving references

Since the text has expanded beyond the scope of the referenced quote below, I have move the references accordingly.

"It has been argued that the Rising was a coup de main by the IRB on the unsuspecting Volunteers, especially in Headquarters. That ignores the fact that the Volunteers, to begin with, were the creation of the IRB with the intention of using them for precisely this purpose." Myths from Easter 1916, Eoin Neeson, 2007, page 79

This is a view shared by:

Easter 1916: The Irish Rebellion, Charles Townshend, 2005, page 41, The IRA, Tim Pat Coogan, 1970, page 33, The Irish Volunteers 1913-1915,F. X. Martin 1963, page 24, The Easter Rising, Michael Foy & Brian Barton, 2004, page 7, Victory of Sinn Féin, P.S. O’Hegarty, page 9-10, The Path to Freedom, Michael Collins, 1922, page 54, Irish Nationalism, Sean Cronin, 1981, page 105, A History of Ireland Under the Union, P. S. O’Hegarty, page 669, 1916: Easter Rising, Pat Coogan, page 50, Revolutionary Woman, Kathleen Clarke, 1991, page 44, The Bold Fenian Men, Robert Kee, 1976, page 203, The IRB: The Irish Republican Brotherhood from the League to Sinn Féin, Owen McGee, 2005, 353-354 instigate

Instead of the word “creation” we have agreed to use the word “instigated.” Other possible words would have included “initiated,” “started,” or “originated.” Regardless, the word carries the same meaning. The following part of the sentence needs to be referenced “was increasingly coming under the control of that organisation, as IRB members worked to promote one another to officer rank whenever possible; hence by 1916 a large proportion of the Volunteer leadership were devoted republicans.” Now I would be more than willing to do this, if editors wish. I would also place the referenced quote on the talk page prior to adding it to the article. --Domer48 (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] military victory part 3

Even to the least military minded it should not take more than a moment’s reflection to appreciate that the idea of a military victory by the Volunteers over the British Army in Ireland is preposterous. At no time was any such hope, prospect or intent part of the IRB/Volunteer plan. Commentators sometimes try to overcome the inherent nonsense in this by relying on the conclusion that if it was not intended to achieve military victory then the only other possible alternative is that it was the mythical ‘blood sacrifice’. While this thesis is essentially in contradiction of the doctrine of “blood-sacrifice”, many revisionists with sublime illogicality nevertheless manage to hold both these views.

--Domer48 (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you've stated Neeson's take on the issue several times (usually you actually attributed his own words to him, but I guess not this time). His assessment is covered in the article. His source, apparently, is "think about it." That's not a good source. Not everyone holds Neeson's view, and the article should reflect that. I'm not sure where Neeson gets the presumption to speak for the thoughts of every member of the IRB Supreme Council from the years 1914-1916, nor every member of the Military Committee, or any other involved parties. It would be nice if he could provide sources.
He is free to think it's preposterous, but I'm not sure that an army of 180,000 men (the approximate size of the Volunteers are the start of WWI, when the IRB agreed to take action) would stand no chance against a barebones garrison in Ireland, while the vast majority of British forces are fighting in Europe. Especially since this is basically what they did 5 years later, under less favorable circumstances. At least one historian says "they hoped and planned for a successful revolt." No source other than Neeson has shown this to be untrue. Against all other writing on the subject, you want to accept as gospel one source that is 1) not by a professional historian (he generally writes on Irish mythology) 2) has not been in circulation long enough to have any published rebuttals, and 3) is quite obscure and difficult to find. I just ordered a copy today, and it was not easy. Why has this one book (not even a general history on the Rising) become the main source for this article, at the expense of all others? -R. fiend (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Interesting you mention the 180,000 Volunteers before the split, as was shown by that split most of them followed Redmond, a man dedicated to seeking no more then home rule from Britain, Redmond saw the Volunteers not as a means of achieving Irish freedom through revolution, but a means of putting pressure on the British government to ensure the home rule bill was implemented, so he wouldn't have support the rising and in fact condemned it when it did occur.--Padraig (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, but this was before the split. The IRB never gave up the hope of commandeering the Volunteers for their own purposes. Domer has been attempting to present the Volunteers as the creation of the IRB alone, and as being under their control all along. Redmond's interference shows the second part, at least, to be incorrect. Nevertheless, the IRB was not going to let a huge influx of political moderates sway them from their aims. It is highly unlikely that at any time prior to the Rising the majority of the Volunteers were committed republicans; that simply was not their stated aim. With the leadership under IRB command, the political opinions of the rank-and-file was not so important, and the IRB always had substantial control (but never total control) over the Volunteers leadership. Admittedly, it is somewhat ironic that when the IRB Supreme Council met to make preliminary plans for a rising at the start of WWI, IRB control of the Volunteers was at its nadir. They started the plans anyway, knowing full well that IRB members were only a small percentage of that 180,000. At the time, were they planning for a military defeat? I don't know (and I'm a bit surprised that Neeson claims that he does), but it would be highly unusual for a such a group to get together for the express purpose of planning a military fiasco sometime in the next couple years. In fact, it is such a strange notion that, if it were an indisputable fact, I can't imagine it not being widely discussed in each and every book ever written about the Easter Rising. But it isn't; it is not mentioned by most books and downright refuted in others. Even with the phrasing I'm advocating, I think this notion of Neeson's is fringe enough that it is given too much emphasis in the article, but I'm willing to live with it, if given the proper context. -R. fiend (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Have you ever seen this, the text of the Irish Volunteer enrollment form:
I, the undersigned, desire to be enrolled for service Ireland as a member of the Irish Volunteer Force. I subscribe to the Constitution of the Irish Volunteers and pledge my willingness to every article of it. I declare that in joining the Irish Volunteer Force Iset before myself the stated objectives of the Irish Volunteers and no others.
1. To secure and maintain the rights and liberties common to all the peoples of Ireland.
2. To train, discipline, and equip for this purpose an Irish Volunteer Force which will render service to an Irish National Government when such is established.
3. To unite in the service of Ireland Irishmen of every creed and of every party andclass.
Taken from Irish Volunteer Soldier 1913-23, p.10 ISBN 1-84176-685-2.--Padraig (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Not sure I've seen that per se, but I'm familiar with the basic tenets, certainly. " To secure and maintain the rights and liberties common to all the peoples of Ireland" is the commonly cited raison d'etre of the Volunteers. But this is getting off topic. It has nothing to do with ascertaining whether or not anyone ever contemplated military victory. -R. fiend (talk) 04:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm putting my last edit back in. No one has been able to refute it, and it is referenced. Obviously there is some uncertainty about the goals of the Rising, and my addition makes that clear. The article does not make the claim that he leaders sought military victory, only that there is no conclusive evidence that it was never considered an aim. Other editors have supported this addition. -R. fiend (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


This editor is again attempting to Synthesizing material to demonstrate the validity of their own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. The sources cited dose not explicitly reach the same conclusion, and therefore the editor is engaged in original research.
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. When content in Wikipedia requires direct substantiation, the established convention is to provide an inline citation to the supporting references. The quote below is being used to support the view of the editor, that a military victory must have been considered at some stage. That the article clearly sets out the goals and objectives of the rebels, is being ignored.
“But there was much more to Connolly, and indeed Pearse, than mystic notions about spilling blood for the benefit of future generations. As Michael Lafffin points out, ‘few of the conspirators actually sought martyrdom and they hoped and planned for a successful revolt’.”
Now provide a references which clearly states that the rebels at one stage planned for a military victory.--Domer48 (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
You can't utterly dismiss a cited source just because you don't like the words they used. What pat of "they planned for a successful revolt" do you not understand? And you refer me to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? The article gives undue weight to the opinion of single author who says military victory was never a consideration. If this is undisputed, point to others who state the same thing. So far you have not been able to. Neeson seems to have come to this conclusion, not from an in depth analysis of sources, but from taking the attitude "I thought about it, and it didn't make sense to me, therefore it can't be true." The fact is, this assertion is disputed, so the article should reflect that. Neeson is not a source that trumps all others, and it is very irritating when you take this attitude that whatever contradicts him must be invalid. -R. fiend (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You are again attempting to Synthesizing material to demonstrate the validity of their own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. The sources cited dose not explicitly reach the same conclusion, and therefore the editor is engaged in original research. The article makes it quite clear, the “revolt” was only one part of the plan. You again are suggesting that the plan was the revolt. --Domer48 (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Rarely have I seen such a case of ownage (with a strong dose of beans, for good measure). The commonly accepted view of the Rising is that it was doomed to failure, but whether failure was planned is very much open to question. R. fiend's text is referenced and should stand. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 23:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"(Please read WP:SYN and WP:OR, please use the talk page)" Oo. Sarah777 - you'd be well advised to follow your own advice, I think. Where have you commented on the talk page on this issue? Where is the synthesis or OR? There is a reference - why are you removing referenced material? It wouldn't just be pointiness because I reverted your edit to Ireland last night, now, would it? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to do with you Bastun; my edit last night was rubbish, as we all know. No, according to the Admin who blocked Domer and TU, R Fiend was edit-warring; but he failed to revert the warring edit (or block Fiend as he had blocked Domer) - so I decided to restore the status quo ante. For which I'm sure you'll applaud me. (Sarah777 (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC))
Not exactly sure what makes one edit the warring edit (it takes two to go to war) and why one edit should be reverted over another, but no matter, I suppose. You'll forgive me if I don't applaud you, I'm sure. In any case, it should perhaps be acknowledged that Domer was blocked for edit warring on a different article, so there's no favoritism here (though I'm sure this didn't help his case). If you do take issue with the edit, however, Sarah777, please feel free to discuss it here. -R. fiend (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Bastun. I'm open for discussing this more, as there seems to be some contention here, but edit warring is unnecessary. People can accuse me of a lot of things (and they have) but no one can say I haven't tried to use the talk page to work out differences. And there has been some real progress. But these back and forth reversions are the sort of thing I expect when the pro-IRA and pro-UVF supporters get involved in contentious disputes (though its still uncalled for even then). That is not what's happening here. Let's not get carried away. -R. fiend (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
'Mornin Fiend. I shouldn't really be here as I have a self-imposed exclusion zone till 13:55 15th January. But I think Domer got a bum deal. If that isn't too rude to say on Wiki. Sarah777 (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. I'd be entirely disinclined to agree with you, except that I've noticed a substantial improvement in his overall attitude and method over the past week, and I think such behavior should be encouraged. His earlier behavior has been remarked upon by several editors, and even drove a very valuable contributor into self-imposed exile so he wouldn't have to deal with such things. In any case, I haven't looked into the matter for which he was blocked, but I'd be very surprised if it was not completely valid. -R. fiend (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, looking over the situation, I would say Domer got a bum deal if it were not for his history of edit warring and incivility. Nevertheless, it seems he wasn't really given fair warning (not the he shouldn't have known better) so I'll post a polite note on blocking admin's talk page and see if we can get his sentence commuted to time served (citing time off for good behavior after several weeks of appalling behavior). I'm not going to press the matter if the admin balks at the suggestion, but I'll make the suggestion. -R. fiend (talk) 07:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The statement that the rising did not intend to be a military victory, is definitive. Please provide an equally definitive statement, that they did. I the absence of such a statement your attempts to use your opinion plus a statement which dose not meet the criteria above is you attempting to Synthesizing material to demonstrate the validity of their own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. The sources cited dose not explicitly reach the same conclusion, and therefore the editor is engaged in original research. --Domer48 (talk) 09:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"...there is doubt that they intended to accomplish this with a single act of armed insurrection" (referenced). "...a plan involving a military victory was never a consideration". (referenced) Domer, these two statements are not mutually incompatible, so I don't see why you keep repeating yourself. But more importantly - you have used Neeson's book no less than eleven times as a reference in this article. Over 50% of the references are now to one author's view. Considering that there are fourteen other books mentioned in the bibliography, many of which disagree to some extent or other with Neeson's conclusions and interpretations - you are giving him far too much weight, in order to advance your own position. Please stop. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read the disccusion, there is no books which contradict Neeson. That Neeson went into more detail than other authors on this aspect is reflected in the number of references. In addition, I would not have to place so many references, i.e. after each sentence, if editors stoped removing the sentences. So are you suggesting that I place a reference after a paragraph. That sounds reasonable. Now "...there is doubt that they intended to accomplish this with a single act of armed insurrection" is not referenced. That is an editors opinion, and is based on the editor attempting to Synthesizing material to demonstrate the validity of their own conclusions, therefore the editor is engaged in original research. Provide a reference which says that they intended to or planned for a military victory and there will not be a problem. Please read the article, it clearly sets out their objectives. --Domer48 (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless a reference is provided which states in definitive terms that they planned for a military victory during Easter 1916, the information will again be removed. That the aims and objectives for the rising are clearly laid out, and have been referenced, using a reliable source. --Domer48 (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, give over. Actually read the text, both in the article and the text above. Stop trying to own the article. There are more sources than Neeson. They don't all agree with him. The particular book being quoted does not appear to have been picked up by a mainstream publisher, and Neeson does not seem entirely credible to many - from all sides of the political spectrum.[1] [2] In short - you don't have consensus to remove this referenced text. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 20:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As per above post: References, not comment or opinion. --Domer48 (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Bastun, so long as you refrain from edit-warring on this article we can probably live with your eccentricity here on the talk pages. I'm generally very well disposed to free speech. Sarah777 (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Sarah777, as you've not contributed to the article recently, except to make a pointy revert with an incorrect edit summary, your opinions on me wrt this article are pretty irrelevant. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 08:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Domer - it is referenced. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 08:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The statement that the rising did not intend to be a military victory, is definitive. Please provide an equally definitive statement, that they did. I the absence of such a statement your attempts to use your opinion plus a statement which dose not meet the criteria above is you attempting to Synthesizing material to demonstrate the validity of their own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. The sources cited dose not explicitly reach the same conclusion, and therefore the editor is engaged in original research. --Domer48 (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry Domer; the statement While the overall aim of the IRB was the establishment of an Irish Republic, there is doubt that they intended to accomplish this with a single act of armed insurrection is fully referenced. Where is this Synthesizing you are claiming? Aatomic1 (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That sentence is not a referenced quote, it is made up by attempting to Synthesizing material to demonstrate the validity of their own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. The sources cited dose not explicitly reach the same conclusion, and therefore the editor is engaged in original research. --Domer48 (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Synthesizing states that Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. Aatomic1 (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That sentence is not a referenced quote, it is made up by attempting to Synthesizing material to demonstrate the validity of their own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. The sources cited dose not explicitly reach the same conclusion, and therefore the editor is engaged in original research.--Domer48 (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeating yourself ad nauseum does not make it true. You are the only editor making this claim - it is not accepted by anyone else. Please stop. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 18:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Domer is not the only one concerned about that quote, I would like to see exactly what the book says, but don't have a copy of the book at hand to check it. Maybe if someone with a copy could provide the exact wording here so we can decide on it.--Padraig (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

BaStun and Aatomic1, since you are unable to provide a source, I will make it simple for you. "there is doubt that they intended to accomplish this with a single act of armed insurrection." Who says there is doubt? Now we know for a fact that Diarmaid Ferriter in The Transformation of Ireland: 1900-2000, on p. 142 did not say it. And we know also, for a fact, that he was only quoting Michael Laffan from his Resurrection of Ireland, p.xiii and he did not say it either. So who did? Now if you refuse to provide an answer, we will know it is only the opinion of the editor who put it in. Which would mean, you are just out to make a point also. Now I could reference it, and reference it properly, but as long as editors wish to Synthesizing material to validity of their own opinions and engaged in original research, I'm unable to do so. So here is your chance to put me in my place. The alternative is to show yourself up as a pov bandits, who has nothing to offer this article. --Domer48 (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"As Michael Laffan points out, ‘few of the conspirators actually sought martyrdom and they hoped and planned for a successful revolt’. This would seem to contradicts Connolly’s admission of hopelessness but just serves to underline the degree of confusion, occasional optimism and pessimism that were a product of these years."
Here Pádraig is the quote highlighted (I have included the whole statement) that is being used to 1)to make the claim they planned for a military victory and 2) to contradict the statement by Eoin Neeson. Dispite the objectives of the leaders being listed in the same paragraph in the article. --Domer48 (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The full text of this is: Few of the conspirators actually sought martyrdom and they hoped and planned for a successful revolt. Nonetheless their main concern was to make a heroic and principled gesture, to salvage what they viewed as the remnants of Ireland's tarnished honour to end the country's passivity and its tame acceptance of British rule. from The Resurrection of Ireland - The Sinn Féin Party 1916-23, p.35, by Michael Laffan ISBN 0-521-67267-8.--Padraig (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice one Pádraig. Now would BaStun or Aatomic1 like to revert. That sentence is attempting to Synthesizing material to demonstrate the validity of an editors own conclusions by citing sources in an attempth to serve and advance the editor's position. The sources cited dose not reach that conclusion, and therefore the editor is engaged in original research, thanks again Pádraig for illustrating that with the actual reference. --Domer48 (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Pádraig. Domer how does this edit convey that they...planned for a successful revolt? Aatomic1 (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm getting confused here and it takes a lot to confuse me. Conventional wisdom and common sense dictates that the Rising was a gesture, a blood sacrifice to get the more craven elements of the nation up off their cowardly knees. So the onus is on those with a contrary extremist view to verify their point. I see nothing in any of the references above that comes close. (Sarah777 (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

Aatomic1 (talk) your right, thats the whole point, it dose not show they...planned for a successful revolt! Which shows that you have not read the discussion, but just wanted the oppertunity to edit war. Now when you remove both your feet from your mouth, why not revert it. --Domer48 (talk) 09:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, they did plan for a victory, but just not the one being suggested, and the whole blood sacrifice thing was just used to down play the importance of what they did accomplish. What some editors want to push is that it was a "military" failure, to play down the fact that it did "get...the nation up off their...knees." Just read the objectives of the Leaders, dose that suggest a military victory was planned? --Domer48 (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry Domer; the statement While the overall aim of the IRB was the establishment of an Irish Republic, there is doubt that they intended to accomplish this with a single act of armed insurrection does not push that it was a "military" failure. Aatomic1 (talk) 11:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that the matter is resolved, per the compleate reference, would the editor like me to provide the sources which would support their comments?--Domer48 (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm presuming you will therefore allow [1] to remain if the matter is resolved. Aatomic1 (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Authors Notability

So you have a problem with the notability of the author? Ok, lets here it. Please provide references or cite someone? Or is it you wish to change Wiki policy? Anyone following these discussions are going to start to question your motives. --Domer48 (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Despite what User:Domer48 would have us believe, Eoin Neeson is not a "noted historian".[3]
Am I alone in expressing my concern that one editor, Domer48, has, over a number of months, been giving undue weight to the writings of an Irish author, Eoin Neeson, in a number of articles relating to Irish history? Who is Eoin Neeson? Born in Cork in 1927, this "pony-tailed former senior civil servant" was director of the Irish Government Information Service in the Jack Lynch years from 1968-73. He is described as a "journalist" by the Princess Grace Irish Library (Monaco).[4] and a "writer and a former director of the Government Information Bureau" at the end of an opinion piece he wrote for the Irish Times in 2003.[5]
Neeson is not accepted by all the historical community as a colleague. He is certainly not a "noted historian". His books, a full listing of which is available from WorldCat,[6] include some titles in folklore and hagiography that are far from what any "noted historian" would engage in. Significantly, some of his books are published by the Prestige imprint from his home address.[7] His works have rarely, if ever, been cited by professional historians, as a Google Books[8] and GetCited search suggest.[9] Moreover and he has never contributed an article to a peer-reviewed journal, review, or edited volume.
Readers should also take into account that Neeson's Myths has been published by the Aubane Historical Society. What may sound like an innocuous local history society is actually the 21st-century expression of a small grouping called the British and Irish Communist Organisation, which has moved full circle from championing Irish historical revisionism in the 1970s to condemning it in 2007.[10]
Peer reviews of his works are non-existent, although some media reviews have appeared. A damning review by Brian Maye of his Birth of A Republic appeared in the Irish Times in November 1998. Neeson responded with a barrage of letters to the editor, attacking his reviewer language uncharacteristic of any historian. Indeed, as one letter-writer, Ellen Beardsley, wrote, she also "the dubious honour of recently reviewing a book by Eoin Neeson" (December 8th), continuing "Since Mr Neeson is consistently unreceptive to opinions other than his own, perhaps he should refrain from placing his work in the public domain. After all, his compulsion to enter into opprobrious correspondence upon the appearance of less than glowing reviews not only devours time (his and the reviewers') that could be better spent but, also must surely raise his blood pressure to exorbitant heights. Further, such correspondence serves no conceivable end, for it attempts to transfer the basis of opinion from the book to the person and, regardless of what Mr Neeson says, opinions based on the books will stand."[11]
Domer48's resistance to any modification to his contributions to Wikipedia certainly mirrors Neeson's own viciousness to any sort of criticism. A poor command of grammar is also something that they share in common. As Maye noticed in Birth of A Republic, wrote: "There is some confused expression and a liberal sprinkling of misprints, misspellings, omissions and grammatical errors."[12] Anyone who's had the pleasure of copy editing Domer48's contributions to Wikipedia can certainly see the similarity.[13]
This is not about notability, but WP:Undue Weight. And challenging the nonsensical, unreferenced, unfounded weasel word claim that Neeson is a "noted historian". Provide a reference for the description that he is a "noted historian" from a noted historian, or the description goes.--Damac (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Damac; may I remind you that Wiki's policies on WP:Reliable source do not specify that the source must be a "noted historian". The views of various Irish Times journalists are perhaps interesting (though not to me) but I think we can produce enough evidence that the IT doesn't have a WP:NPOV in relation to Irish Nationalism. So your "provide a reference for the description that he is a "noted historian" from a noted historian, or the description goes" is somewhat OTT. And you seem about to engage in a bout of WP:Edit warring. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC))
Surely you can see that when a self-published folklorist is being touted as a "noted historian", and almost 50% of the references in a high-importance article are to his book alone, then there is a serious problem of undue weight? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 23:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Haven't been following this in detail to be honest. Just struck me that Damac's demand for a "notable historian" to verify that Neeson was a "noted historian" was going beyond normal requirements. If the situation is as you portray it then it would need some consideration, no doubt. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

Just more Comment and opinion, Princess Grace Irish Library (Monaco) has him as a historian. Read Ireland Book News "Eoin Neeson's masterly appraisal make this book compelling and essential reading." the Weekly Worker Cited and noted. An Phoblacht, "Another blow against anti-nationalist revisionism was struck by historian Eoin Neeson" good alternative to the IT. RTE "Vincent talks to author and historian Eoin Neeson." Recommended Reading. Now Damac, I managed that in five minutes. So your prepared statement, or attempt to shoot the messenger falls flat on it's face. Now everyone knows your just out to make a point, so cop on to yourself. Bring your little band of POV bandits of some where else and play. --Domer48 (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Now we have an Admin who dose not even bother to use the talk page getting into the editwaring spirit. Nice one! --Domer48 (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I saw that Domer and have left a message on his page. If he continues edit-warring I'll escalate the issue. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is getting stupid, the text is referenced, therefore I fail to see what the problem is, if editors disagree with what the source says then provide sources to support your claims.--Padraig (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Now he has added a request for citations (which he should have done the first time). That is acceptable; now Domer, you should provide them in the place required (rather than on this talkpage). Padraig; if you feel that "this is getting stupid" may I politely suggest you tell that to John? (Sarah777 (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

See Aatomic1 is back edit waring, they don't even cop they are arguing my point, and still put it back in. --Domer48 (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, we're stuck in a dispute, partially caused by Domer48's obvious difficulty in literacy. The Princess Grace Library does not refer to him as a historian; it clearly calls him an "journalist" in the first line of their biographical note of him. The page does refer to another author, Peter Costello, who describs him as one.
Needless to say, Peter Costello is not a professional historian, neither is Vincent Browne (his RTÉ page descibes Neeson as an "historian").
As I've pointed out, while Neeson has written a number of features for the Irish Times, the byline describes him as an "author", not an historian. Surely, as the author of a piece, he must have had some say in what his byline stated.
My problem was primarily with the adjective "noted", added by Domer48 and which clearly reflects his almost singular obsession with Neeson and his books.
Calling Neeson an historian is also problematic in my book. Sadly, and unlike many other university-trained professions and sciences (solicitor, engineer, architect, chemist, physicist, etc.), anyone can call themselves an historian. The fact remains, however, that Neeson does not engage in academic debate or culture, is not a member of any professional historical association, and his works have not reviewed by the wider academic history community. Describing him as a "noted historian" is going too far.
As Neeson quotes have been peppered across a number of articles, it's probably time that Neeson gets his own article. That will cover all aspects of his prolific career and should leave readers in no doubt to his standing as an "historian".--Damac (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as you reference it I have no problem at all? But that is the problem, your lack of references! All comment and opinion, but nothing to else. --Domer48 (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Noted" is a meaningless space-filler. What does it mean? That someone once made a note that he was an historian? That tells us nothing. It's basically just a weasel word; someone can be a "noted" anything. It's like saying "important", which is utterly subjective as well as potentially POV. Damac is right in that basically anyone can call oneself a historian as long as they've written something having to do with history, so calling Neeson a historian is fair, regardless of any status of "professional". But why "noted"? What does it add? -R. fiend (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uncontroversial (?) copyedit while page is protected

User:John is an administrator I respect and his page is always on my watchlist. I was a bit surprised to see him being accused of edit warring so I took a look to see what he was up to. In that respect and according to an antagonist of mine, I have Wikistalked him here.

Hopefully this requested edit is uncontroversial. "Sprit" is mis-spelled and the inline reference format breaches WP:MOS. Please change

According to noted historian RTEPrincess Grace Irish Library (Monaco) Eoin Neeson, a plan involving a military victory was never a consideration; while the Leaders considered there would be some military success, an overall military victory was never an objective of the Rising. The IRB set out three objectives for the Rising: First, declare an Irish Republic, second, revitalise the sprit of the people and arouse separatist national fervour, and thirdly, claim a place at the post war peace conference. [2]

to

According to writer [14][15] Eoin Neeson, a plan involving a military victory was never a consideration; while the Leaders considered there would be some military success, an overall military victory was never an objective of the Rising. The IRB set out three objectives for the Rising: first, declare an Irish Republic, second, revitalise the spirit of the people and arouse separatist national fervour and, thirdly, claim a place at the post war peace conference. [2]

Thanks! Alice✉ 01:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} The spelling mistake I noted above has now been corrected, but I would like to propose the following change - most of which has been discussed in the sections below:

According to writer <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.pgil-eirdata.org/html/pgil_datasets/authors/n/Neeson,E/life.htm |title=Eoin Neeson |accessdate=2008-01-08 |author= |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= |year= |month= |format= |work=EIRData - Electronic Irish Records Dataset |publisher= Princess Grace Irish Library (Monaco) |quote=1927- ; b. Cork; journalist; Director of Government Information Bureau; later civil service posts; The Civil War in Ireland, 1922-3 (Cork Mercier 1966; rep. 1989); novels include Life Has No Price (1960); plays include The Face of Treason (radio and tv.); also vols. on folklore such as Irish Book of Saints (1967); First Book of Irish Myths and Legends (Mercier n.d.); a life of Michael Collins (1968); Birth of a Republic (1998) was published under the Prestige imprint from his home address. }}</ref> Eoin Neeson, a plan involving a military victory was never a consideration; while the Leaders considered there would be some military success, an overall military victory was never an objective of the Rising. The IRB set out three objectives for the Rising: first, declare an Irish Republic, second, revitalise the spirit of the people and arouse separatist national fervour and, thirdly, claim a place at the post war peace conference. <ref name="Eoin Neeson"/>


The rationale for missing out the first reference to a program guide from RTE (National Irish radio station) is that it is

  1. superfluous and unnecessary, since nobody has disputed that he is a writer
  2. insufficiently authoritative to establish that he is or was an historian

The other change is to put the remaining source in citeweb format. Alice✉ 00:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The protection on this article has expired, so you should be able to make the change yourself. Please take care to ensure your edits will have consensus, and discuss controversial changes on the talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

What is the controversy over protection exactly? It seems the phrase "While the overall aim of the IRB was the establishment of an Irish Republic, there is doubt that they intended to accomplish this with a single act of armed insurrection" is still controversial, for some reason. Still can't figure out why some people have a problem with it. Perhaps it would be better if it said "While the overall aim of the IRB was the establishment of an Irish Republic, there is no doubt that they intended to accomplish this with a single act of armed insurrection"? Because Neeson seems to be the only one who's really providing any doubt at all. If a professional historian denies military success was never even considered, someone really should cite him. As it stands, people seem to think the statement saying "there is doubt" is the same as saying "the leaders planned to overthrow British rule in Ireland and would not settle for anything less." That's not what it says. Some writers on the subject say there was at least some hope of military success at some point. One says there was not. Therefore, there is "doubt". No one is denying the other aims. This is getting ridiculous. -R. fiend (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I will make it simple for you. "there is doubt that they intended to accomplish this with a single act of armed insurrection." Who says there is doubt? Who says they planned to accomplish this with a single act of armed insurrection? Now we know for a fact that Diarmaid Ferriter in The Transformation of Ireland: 1900-2000, on p. 142 did not say it. And we know also, for a fact, that he was only quoting Michael Laffan from his Resurrection of Ireland, p.xiii and he did not say it either. So who did? Now I could reference it, and reference it properly, but as long as you wish to Synthesizing material to validity your own opinions and engaged in original research, I'm unable to do so. I provided 12 references to show that the IRB planned the creation of the Irish Volunteers, and you would not accept it. --Domer48 (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there a typographical error in your comment immediately above, Domer 48?
Are you really saying that you can find no basis in any source whatever that "there is doubt that they intended to accomplish this with a single act of armed insurrection."? Alice✉ 09:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, one editor wants to say that they set out and planned for a military victory. Now they have not provided a reference for this. Instead, they have attempted to Synthesizing material to validity your own opinions. Now thats wrong! --Domer48 (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's try to make this simple. There are 3 potential scenarios:
  1. There is a consensus among historians that they at some point considered military success.
  2. There is a consensus among historians that none of the leaders ever considered military success.
  3. There is no consensus, and therefore, by definition, "doubt". (If you think "doubt" is not a god word, there are others that can be used).
Let's look at these situations:
  1. Neeson denies this, so at least one person does not agree, and there is no consensus.
  2. No one except Neeson seems to say military victory was never a consideration, but some say there were, and the rest are eerily silent abut this, so there is no consensus the other way either.
  3. There is no agreement among historians about this, as we cannot take Neeson's statement as an established fact if it is not backed up by the vast majority of other writers. Therefore doubt exists (in fact, it is Neeson who is doing the doubting).
Laffan, to name just one, does say "Few of the conspirators actually sought martyrdom and they hoped and planned for a successful revolt." How do you read that to mean that they never considered a successful revolt? He does go on to say "Nonetheless their main concern was to make a heroic and principled gesture, to salvage what they viewed as the remnants of Ireland's tarnished honour to end the country's passivity and its tame acceptance of British rule." The edit does not deny this (it is not mutually exclusive with a successful revolt anyway), in fact it uses Neeson's words to express this exactly in the following sentence. If people want to present this idea [that no one at any time ever considered a successful revolt] to be the consensus among experts on this period, they have a lot of work to do, because right now all we have is one unsubstantiated statement by a single author. He doesn't speak for everyone. -R. fiend (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Excuse my ignorance but has any editor provided a reference to say that a military victory was what the leaders wanted or is it just editors opinion on this thanks. BigDunc (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Dunc, your right of course! They have not provided one reference to say they planned a military victory. Notice the slective quote by Laffen. Here is the full quote that they decided to ignore:

The full text of this is: Few of the conspirators actually sought martyrdom and they hoped and planned for a successful revolt. Nonetheless their main concern was to make a heroic and principled gesture, to salvage what they viewed as the remnants of Ireland's tarnished honour to end the country's passivity and its tame acceptance of British rule. from The Resurrection of Ireland - The Sinn Féin Party 1916-23, p.35, by Michael Laffan ISBN 0-521-67267-8.--Padraig (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Now dose that sound like they planned for a military victory? Of course not, but dose it stop them, no. --Domer48 (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If R. fiend is factually correct as to the references and sources (and nobody else seems to have called him out on this aspect) then his argument is logically and semantically correct, it seems to me.
BigDunc and Padraig: it seems to me that you wish to advance an un-sourced and biased point of view that the leaders were prescient as to the likelihood (or even the distinct possibility) of military failure. Alice✉ 19:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. This is not an example of Lions led by donkeys. Aatomic1 (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Alice✉ why don't you ask R. fiend to provide a reference which says, the leaders planned for a military victory? Something along the lines of the example I gave here. --Domer48 (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Domer48: I'm sorry to be a little sensitive, but I'd be grateful if you did not reproduce my coloured HTML signature with the little envelope symbol, until and unless I give you authority to sign on my behalf. My user name of "Alice" is quite short to write. Thanks in advance for your co-operation in this regard. (I ha ve a little Java script in operation that detects incidents of this signature use).
I don't ask him because it is a reasonable assumption in pre-suicide bomber days that political leaders would not ask men to die in a "military" cause that had zero chance of achieving a success. But I do take your point that this is an assumption. I assume that the rifles were also loaded with live ammunition rather than blanks.
Alice do you think that the leaders of the rebellion were naive enough to think that they could defeat the might of the Bitish Empire in a battle? The reference that Padraig points to that it was the beginning of a process of uprising. And not a one off battle to drive them into the Irish Sea BigDunc (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
A telling debating point, BigDunc. But is that really the POV that editors have been trying to introduce here? I think you can easily tell that I am very ignorant on this subject, but I always had the impression that the targets were chosen more for symbolic than tactical military advantage. Alice✉ 04:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well with any luck, we will be able to dispel a number of impressions editors and readers may have had. That there is resistance to this process of correction is what has us here. "I give you authority to sign on my behalf" I signed nothing on your behalf, sorry to be a little sensitive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domer48 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some more proposals

Okay, my New Year's resolution is to stop losing my cool and try to bring some peace into the world. In that spirit, I would like to offer some comments/proposals:

  1. We need to keep a sense of proportion. The difference between the two edits is so tiny that very few people other than us here would even see a difference. With so much in the article that could be improved it is a terrible waste of everybody's talent to devote weeks of editing to what is essentially "was never a consideration" against "was virtually never a consideration".
  2. We need to stop being angry (and this is obviously directed at myself as much as or more than anyone else). Anger only leads to entrenched positions even when those positions aren't worth defending. If something makes us angry we need to take the time, be it a half-hour or a day, to cool down and think out a reasoned response.
  3. We need to go beyond assuming good faith; we need to assume that all the involved editors are working to improve the article, that they are working from reliable sources, that they have read, understood and followed all the relevant WP policies and guidelines, and that they are writing from a viewpoint that is reasonable and balanced. Edits can then be discussed on their merits rather than on the perceived or implied shortcomings of the editors.
  4. We need – and I'm sticking my neck out here – to abandon our quest for the truth. That is for the historians to do, and there are some things we will never know the truth of if we argue until doomsday. Let us amateurs just write what we know and leave the whys and wherefores to those whose job it is.
  5. In the short term, we need to decide which edit is to remain, so that the article can be unprotected and we can move on. I think it would be preferable to do this by agreement rather than by polling or by arbitration. Both edits look equally good to me. If I had to choose I would go for Domer's edit, only for the reason that it is the less complex of the two (though I would change "noted historian" back to "historian" for the same reason). Either way, I would like to see it done in such a way that neither editor is seen to have "backed down".

That's my 2½d worth. Obviously, everybody is free to heed or ignore any or all of it. Whatever may emerge, I wish all of you a Happy New Year and happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Very wise. Alice✉ 19:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice one Scolaire, I totally agree with you. Now the only problem with my edit is, I can also put forward a conflicting view to Neeson. For example:“The Ireland Report indisputably reveals the Military Council’s plans as optimistic, coherent in relation to land warfare and directed to achieving a military victory by overwhelming the British forces in Ireland.” Now that is the sort of reference they are looking for, but can not provide. Now I have every intension of adding it, but it must be done in the context in which it was written, and not used slectivly. Now if there was a strict adherence to WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:V it would at least be a start. --Domer48 (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Quote from Domer
Now the only problem with my edit is....
...er if you are aware of a problem with your edit why did you not simply insert it in the first place? You have been dicking everyone around.Aatomic1 (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is R. Fiend making edits to a protected article, I see no prior discussion here for the changes he made here.--Padraig (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That may have been my fault, Padraig. If you look at the section but one above this one (entitled "Uncontroversial (?) copyedit while page is protected") I assumed that nobody would object to the two inline "references" being of the form suggested by our WP:MOS so as to appear to the reader just as numbers rether than as (distracting?) piped external links. I also thought that the spelling correction of sprit (sic) would be uncontroversial. R fiend was very restrained in his edit and only changed the reference style - he even kept the spelling mistake (although that was corrected in his second edit). You will note that he did not change "According to noted historian" to "According to writer" since he (presumably) thought that might be controversial. I think we should follow Scolaire's advice above and not be so grudging and nit-picking with our fellow editors. Alice✉ 04:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Admins are not allowed to edit protected articles, especially when they are involved in the disput over content.--Padraig (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide a reference for that? I thought that edits could be requested - which is why I started the section that I did. I certainly took the lack of a response for acquiescence and R fiend may have done too. Alice✉ 04:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Issues with the current version

Here's one of my problems with that paragraph as it stands, and I'm sorry if I didn't make some of this clearer earlier: The main thing is that Neeson, and therefore the article, use some poor language, specifically he uses absolute terms in a very general manner. "a plan involving a military victory was never a consideration." It is mostly the two italicized words that are problematical. It doesn't say "the plan was not for military victory" (a substantially less controversial statement), it says "never" as in at no point, apparently ever, going back god knows how many years, did anyone not only not plan, but didn't even think about the possibility of military victory. So none of the people involved in any stage of the planning (the Military Council, The Supreme Council, The ICA, The Clan na Gael) even thought for a moment about a potentially successful insurrection. That is going well beyond simply stating that their goal was not to use this one rising to actually establish an independent republic.

I think everyone can agree that the leaders had other goals. They were certainly prepared to go ahead whether the probability of military victory was 99% or 1% (this is what set them apart from men such as O'Rahilly, Hobson, Casement, and others). But to go from that to saying it was never a consideration by anyone goes well beyond what any other historian says, or could say with any degree of certainty. Can Neeson honestly say that when the IRB Supreme Council met at the dawn of WWI, not a single one considered the remote possibility of actually succeeding in the goal of an Irish Republic? And when and why did this notion go from an impossibility to an actual goal during the war for independence? Perhaps I'll know more about what Neeson's source for this assertion when his book arrives in my mailbox soon, but I'm not certain it will be anything other than his personal hypothesis. -R. fiend (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

R. fiend, I still don't understand why you don't just let it go. That Neeson said that "a plan involving a military victory was never a consideration" is a bald fact; that he was fairly close to the truth, at least as regards the Military Council in 1913 - 1916, is accepted by all parties; that the statement adds to the article seems to be accepted by you, since your reverts involve adding a sentence rather than deleting that one. Compare the sentence "The Rising is generally seen as having been doomed to military defeat from the outset, and to have been understood as such by its leaders: critics have seen in it elements of a "blood sacrifice" in line with some of the romantically-inclined Pearse's writings", most of which is still in the article today, and you might see why I am puzzled by the current edit-war.
Domer48, am I right in thinking that your response to me above means that you now want a contrary point of view put forward, but you will not allow anybody other than yourself to do it, because nobody else is capable of doing it properly? If that is so, and considering your pointed references to WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:V, I don't really understand how you can say you "totally agree" with me. Which 100% are you agreeing with?
Scolaire (talk) 08:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
A few points. First of all, I think we should try to do better than "fairly close to the truth." I think undue weight is being given to the opinions of a single writer who admits he contradicts most other sources. I think Neeson uses too much hyperbole and too many superlatives, in a manner of speaking, and they are carried into this article (the difference between "not planning for military victory" and "never considering military victory" is more significant than it might seem). Furthermore, I happen to think the writing isn't very good. The whole paragraph was cut out of Neeson's book and inserted in the middle of a cohesive section of this article, and it's pretty damn obvious. The paragraph really needs some sort of introduction because the transition is awkward. (Additionally the 4 words "military victory was never" appear twice in the same sentence, but admittedly that's more of a minor stylistic point that could probably be worked out after the more controversial elements are settled.) Besides, I'm not the only one arguing for this, as others have said basically the same thing. That being said, I appreciate your insights above (which I meant to point out earlier but forgot) and agree with most of what you said. -R. fiend (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I may have to re-read the last 13 sections, but I have the impression that the majority of the 20,000 words posted in the last two weeks were concerned with the words "a military victory was never a consideration". If your problem is with the whole paragraph, as you now say, then focussing on those few words for that long may not have been the best way to deal with it. If each editor involved posted an alternative wording of the whole paragraph on the talk page, then we could have a meaningful discussion on all of the issues, including the weight given to Neeson's book, and conceivably end up by improving the article. BTW, I think your comment on "fairly close to the truth" is unfair. Nobody disputes the accuracy of the quote, or its relevance to the article, and the imputation that I would settle for less than the truth seems to me like a cheap shot, and at odds with the assumption of good editing that I proposed in the previous section. Neither did I suggest that you are alone in your opinions; I simply replied to your post on a one-to-one basis. Scolaire (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Scolaire (talk) "a plan involving a military victory was never a consideration" is a statement of fact. Can you tell me what is wrong with that. That one editor doubts that, and yet cannot reference one author who shares that doubt, or rejects the notion is at the root of the problem. The same editor rejected the fact that the IRB were behind the establishment of the Volunteers and despite me providing 12 references, continued to obstruct the article. The same editor would not accept the fact that it was Tom Clarke who reorganised the IRB starting the process even before he arrived in Ireland, and insisted that it was Hobson, even though Hobson did not arrive in Dublin until 1980. It has got to the stage were you have to nearly reference each sentence, because of this editor. --Domer48 (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Scolaire, sorry if I gave you the wrong impression, my problem is not with the entire paragraph, but with the emphasis the paragraph gives to the opinion of a single author, and the manner the entire paragraph is incorporated into the article. Both are remedied by the edit you said was just as good as the other, and those are my reasons why I think it is better. (I did also mention the repetition of "military victory was never", but I honestly only just noticed that yesterday, so it has not been a focus; it should be quite easy to fix, if people can tolerate minor changes to what they write.) Additionally, I have been posting alternative wordings on the talk page, only to be met by irrelevant responses by people who apparently didn't even read them. Again, sorry if I misunderstood your comment about being fairly close to the truth, but that was what you said in the context of letting the article stay as is.
Domer, well, we've been over this many times. I've referenced other authors who contradicted that statement (even Neeson says many writers do), but obviously you don't care to hear that. One author says it's true so it must be an indisputable statement of fact. I never said the IRB were not behind the creation of the Volunteers (or at least one of the forces behind their creation), I said the Volunteers did not create the Volunteers, which is different, and not supported by all those books you cited. I never said Clarke didn't reorganize the IRB, only that he wasn't the only one and didn't start it himself. More on that here. By the way, fascinating how Hobson could not have done anything until 1908 (or was it 1980?) because he was in Ulster, and not Dublin, but Clarke could start reorganizing while he was in America, which last I checked was not only not in Dublin, but not even in Ireland. -R. fiend (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) To Domer:

  1. I am on record as saying that I am perfectly happy with "a plan involving a military victory was never a consideration".
  2. R. fiend has referenced several authors in support of his argument, so even though I would prefer to leave the quote as it is, I don't think it's helpful to say he's not referencing authors when he is.
  3. R.fiend never rejected the fact that the IRB were behind the establishment of the Volunteers, only the fact that they were actually the creators. If you recall, I supported you on that one as well, but I don't think it's helpful to distort the facts.
  4. I don't understand "Hobson did not arrive in Dublin until 1980", but it seems to me that R. fiend is only saying that the process of reorganisation of the IRB in Ireland was begun by Hobson and McCullough in Belfast in 1905. Once again, I am in agreement with you that Tom Clarke was the prime mover both in the revival of the IRB and in the planning of the Rising, but let's not attack another editor for something he hasn't said.
  5. Quite frankly, it seems to me that it's Domer48, not R. fiend, that requires you to reference each sentence. I don't recall R. fiend ever reverting an edit with a summary of "Please read WP:V".
  6. Finally, my name is not "Scolaire (talk)". I am happy to be addressed as "Scolaire", or "Peter", but "Scolaire (talk)" grates on my nerves.
Thank you. Scolaire (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Lets get this out of the way once and for all, R. fiend, quote an author which states that they planned for a military victory. Now we have established that Michael Laffan, The Resurrection of Ireland - The Sinn Féin Party 1916-23, p.35 and Diarmaid Ferriter in The Transformation of Ireland: 1900-2000, on p. 142 did not say it. Now I can reference and quote sources which show that Clarke was in contact with Hobson, before he came to Ireland, so we can park that one for now. R.fiend did and dose rejected the fact that the IRB were behind the establishment of the Volunteer and not just on this article. Scolaire, you know that a military victory was never part of the planning, so lets see what reference is produced? --Domer48 (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Once and for all, R. fiend has not said that they planned for a military victory, only that they did not rule it out. The full quote from Laffan, quoted by Padraig above, says just exactly that: their main concern was to make a heroic and principled gesture, but they hoped and planned for a successful revolt (Ferriter apparently only quoted Laffan). My two aims here are to dissuade R. fiend from arguing against the Neeson quote, and to dissuade you from misrepresenting him. Either or both of you have the option of just stopping. Just stopping will not harm the article a bit but it will allow us to move on and do some needed editing. Scolaire (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that the full quote of laffan should be used in the article rather then just the first sentance.--Padraig (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
"Few of the conspirators actually sought martyrdom and they hoped and planned for a successful revolt. Nonetheless their main concern was to make a heroic and principled gesture, to salvage what they viewed as the remnants of Ireland's tarnished honour to end the country's passivity and its tame acceptance of British rule."? Agree. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 17:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Last I checked, no one was trying to insert to actual quote of Laffan into the text at all, just citing it in the footnotes. I'd be generally against inserting it, at the risk of the section becoming a list of quotes about aims and the like. That's poor style.

Additionally, I want to clarify something Scolaire said above. I'm not even trying to say that they did not rule out military victory, as they may well have. I'm just trying to point out that sources are not all in complete agreement on the issue. Neeson's view is the most extreme (going the furtherest at least) and also the only one presented. That's my issue. All I'm proposing is adding to the opening of the paragraph: "While the overall aim of the IRB was the establishment of an Irish Republic..." this part no one can deny. It is also a stylistic improvement as it ties in better to the paragraph before it. "...there is doubt that they intended to accomplish this with a single act of armed insurrection." This reminds readers that the eventual goal was still a Republic, and they still eventually expected to have to take it by force, but this rising was only the first step. Again, I'd like to see the article go more towards presenting the idea that military victory was not really the plan, rather than "never a consideration". Is there any other source that goes as far as Neeson? -R. fiend (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"I'm just trying to point out that sources are not all in complete agreement" what sources? Provide the sources? --Domer48 (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

  • sigh* I can only conclude at this stage, Domer - despite Scolaire's excellent admonition to vigourously assume good faith, above - that you are being deliberately unhelpful and obstructive. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 17:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Domer has admitted as much here. Aatomic1 (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I have asked also where are these sources that refute the one Domer has put in, an easy way to stop this is to just ref it. BigDunc (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Dunc, your wasting your time. Bill and Ben there just want to cause trouble, and add nothing to the discussion. --Domer48 (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think all editors should pay attention to a very useful guidelines, developed at the Wikipedia Military History Project
"Policy requires that articles reference only reliable sources; however, this is a minimal condition, rather than a final goal. With the exception of certain recent topics that have not yet become the subject of extensive secondary analysis, and for which a lower standard may be temporarily permitted, articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians. The use of high-quality primary sources is also appropriate, but care should be taken to use them correctly, without straying into original research. Editors are encouraged to extensively survey the available literature—and, in particular, any available historiographic commentary—regarding an article's topic in order to identify every source considered to be authoritative or significant; these sources should, if possible, be directly consulted when writing the article."({[WP:MILMOS#SOURCES]], emphasis mine)
The problem here and elsewhere is that books, primarily from the British and Irish Communist Organisation/Athol Books/Aubane Historical Society/Anti-Revisionist-cum-born-again-nationalist stable are being extensively quoted in articles relating to Irish history. More and more space is being given to views which may not be representative of the professional and academic historical community. Neeson's books have not been peer reviewed by historians, which itself is a statement of how much standing this author has in the historical community.
Time and time again we are being asked to provide quotations that directly refute the interpretations of one author, Eoin Neeson. Providing a primary source which suggests that the IRB never considered military victory is one thing; providing a secondary opinion contained in a published book and standing over it as it it is gospel fact, is another.--Damac (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Still searching in the dark are we Damac? Rather than provide a reference, well you just keep scrapping the bottom of that barrel, as long as it keeps you happy. --Domer48 (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have Neeson's book now, and while I haven't had time to look over it too carefully, the passage in question is completely unsourced. The author is not a professional historian, and the book is not one that is widely considered authoritative. Why is it getting so much play here? -R. fiend (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It has already been established above that Neeson is an historian. The book is very well referenced, should editors wish me to list the references in the book, just ask. The book was only published in 2007, and books normally take some years before they could be described as authoritative. I would be intrested if editors might suggest a title of a book which became authoritative, on publication. The book is the first one published, which has ever gone into so much detail on the planning of the Rising, though it dose state that in the introduction, and having read the book, that is what it set out to do. According to what source is the "book...not one that is widely considered authoritative," as it would be intresting to know which author would make such a claim? --Domer48 (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The reasons why it is not authoritative is not the issue. The fact that it is very new is one such reason, but the fact remains, it still is not considered authoritative. I'm not saying it shouldn't be referenced at all, just that this article is in danger of becoming Neeson's view of the Rising, which is not what this article should be, not when there are so many other works on the subject. As for references, sure he has a good bibliography, but no better than other works. And a list of books for further reading in the back does not in itself say that much. For footnotes, he has 93 in a 198 page book, which is less than one every two pages (not bad, but not great). You ask according to what source is it not considered authoritative? The real question is what source does consider it authoritative? (Name one source that specifically states Alfie, the village homeless guy, is not an authoritative source on the Easter Rising.) Do a google search for the book (like so) and you'll see 16 unique google hits, many wikipedia and its mirrors, a few are booksellers (none of them major sellers like amazon, however), and some are things like this. I'm not saying it's a bad book (I won't have an opinion on that for a little while now), and I have no doubt it will be an interesting read, but it is still not a book that should trump so many others. On a side note, I am a bit skeptical of a historian who, without batting an eye, contradicts established sources on when Pearse joined the IRB, but that's mostly a separate issue. -R. fiend (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

So no author has said it's not authoritative, but you must have thought that it was an issue because you said "the book is not one that is widely considered authoritative." I assumed you had a source for that? It was I who suggested that "the fact that it is very new is one such reason." Therefore the question "The real question is what source does consider it authoritative," coming from one who has said it is not the issue," I find strange? Now there is no one stopping anyone from referencing any book about the Rising, so Neeson's book dose not "trump so many others." I an glad thought that you now accept that Neeson is an historian. That at least is progress. --Domer48 (talk) 09:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't make heads or tails of half of what you wrote there. Please try to use proper grammar to make coherent arguments. I'll just say this, with 16 unique google hits (a quarter of which are wikipedia) I would say the book is not "widely" considered anything. It just isn't a widely considered book. You seem to think that everything is true until proven false, and that works are authoritative until proven otherwise, which is not the case. This is relevant here because of the policies Damac cites above addressing sources " considered to be authoritative or significant" and authors who are "reputable historians". Historian, not being a licensed trade, is a title that can be claimed by anyone who writes about history, the "reputable" part here is what is in question. -R. fiend (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please read up on WP:SKILL and WP:TPG while on the talk page. It would possibly help the discussion flow much better if you left out your personal opinions on the book, as our opinions are not pertinent. We only deal with what is WP:verifiable. Now is there any contradicting views to those of Neeson, held by Authors on this subject? If there is, they should be included on the article talk page. Our criteria for inclusion is based on the policies outlined in WP:V.--Domer48 (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There are, and they have been pointed out to you many times. That you refuse to recognize their existence prevents this discussion from going anywhere. -R. fiend (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly Domer there has been to much procrastination already on this article. BigDunc (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
In this section, I can understand the contributions and rationale of Bastun, Damac, R. fiend, and Scolaire (listed in alphabetical order) but I am getting increasingly perplexed as to why BigDunc and Domer48 seem so resistant to any and every argument and cling like grim death to the exact (and, admittedly minority point of view) stance of a single non-historian.
The only other time I have seen such obduracy on Wikipedia has been when there was a conflict of interest between the partisan aims of a particular team of edit warriors and those of our Encyclopedia in presenting a balanced and unbiased summary. If you do have a particular interest (such as working for a book publisher or being aligned with a particular political party) I think that now would be a good time to declare it. Alice✉ 23:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so were are the sources these editors wish to use? --Domer48 (talk) 08:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone show me the refs or sources that he is not a historian, Domer has provided WP:V and WP:RS references that he is. Instead of what Bastun, Damac, R. fiend, and Scolaire (listed in alphabetical order) POV regarding this historian is. If there is a conflicting view, source it and put it in simple. Also Alice as you have said before you are ignorant on the subject so please dont bandy words around like conflict of interest and edit warriors it is not helpful, if you have evidence of either please provide. BigDunc (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you show me a reference that the sky is not green? Or maybe actually read the discussion here. Anyone can claim to be a historian. I don't think anybody is even actually disputing that Neeson can be called a historian in the article (even if I too would personally prefer just "writer"), but there is certainly justified opposition to calling him a "noted" one. Domer has now removed that term anyway (thank you Domer). BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem Bastun, now if editors would like to wade in and lend a hand referencing, we could have the article covered in no time. Next step would be then GA ststus? --Domer48 (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of referencing, can I ask you again, instead of using "ref name=", to write a different reference for each statement, saying what page of the book is being cited. Most of the books you have cited in the last couple of days are already in the bibliography, and any that aren't can easily be added. Unfortunately nobody else can do this for you because we can only guess what page you are referring to. Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with the comments of Alice, above, I think there's nothing to be gained by prolonging the "is he a historian or is he a writer" argument. R. fiend and Damac are content for him to be called a historian, and Domer and Dunc are content to drop the "noted", so it's time to put that one to bed. Ideally, that would also mean removing the references — his job description is not a "fact" for the purposes of the article, so if we agree to leave it there's no need to cite it. Scolaire (talk) 08:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your reversion of my edit. (Otherwise it would be rather off-colour to revert a previously signalled edit that essentially put a citation in webcite format and that was not objected to at the time I signalled it.) Alice✉ 10:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, sometimes it's a pity that you can't change your edit summaries, especially when you hit the 'Save' button and immediately think, "that was a bit strong!" Sorry about that :)
BTW I had missed the post you linked to there — although I often look at the revision history of a talk page, on this occasion the discussion had been dormant for several days so I only took up reading it from the bottom of the page. Scolaire (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
That's helpful, Scolaire. Thank you.
(After I have seen what happened to R. fiend, I doubt I will contribute here again. I feel terribly guilty that it was my nitpicking over correcting what I thought would be an uncontroversial and obvious spelling mistake that caused him to be victimised - even if it may have been just "the final straw".) Alice✉ 00:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Please don't refrain from contributing to this or any other article on my account. I think we all know that the ANI that resulted from the minor corrections to this article was bullshit (cool! I'm not an admin anymore, I can swear with impunity!), but it should not affect anyone but me. Had I been the model admin in all other respects, nothing would have come of it. In any case, I'm fine with how things worked out, but it should by no means prevent progress on any Wikipedia article. -R. fiend (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Issues with the current version II

Ok can editors list any concerns are still outstanding on this article, so we get on with improving this article.--Padraig (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Padraig. There are some edits going back to November that I wanted to discuss, but I was waiting for the other discussion to close:

  1. "…it succeeded in bringing physical force republicanism back to the forefront of Irish politics" changed to "…it succeeded in bringing Irish Nationalism back to the forefront of Irish politics".[16]. Nationalism was always at the forefront of Irish politics, but before Easter 1916 it took the form of parliamentary politics seeking Home Rule. Physical force republicanism had been absent or undercover for all but 50 years, and the Rising brought that back to the forefront.
  2. "There were some actions in other parts of Ireland, but they were minor and, except at Ashbourne, County Meath, unsuccessful" changed to "but they were minor, including Ashbourne, County Meath, and were also suppressed".[17]. I absolutely agree with the removal of the word "unsuccessful", but this edit relegates Ashbourne to the same status as the other actions, when in fact it was a more successful action than any of the others – it was in fact the only major action outside Dublin. Maybe it could be changed to "but, except at Ashbourne, County Meath, they were minor."
  3. "This was the first major military parade held in Dublin since the early 1970's" changed to "held in Dublin since 1966".[18] 1966 was the biggest of the parades, but the parades continued until they were abolished by the coalition government in the early 1970s. I thought that this was stated in the "Legacy of the Rising" section, but I see now that it's not. It would be worth adding.

Scolaire (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

On your first point I agree that should be changed back, on the second your change would be a better wording and would agree to that. Same with the third point, 1966 was the last major parade, others since then where very low key affairs until they where ended by the coalition.--Padraig (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should drop the word "major" altogether, then? "This was the first official commemoration held in Dublin since the early 1970s" might be more to the point. And in the "Legacy" section, we might expand "In 1976 the Irish government took the unprecedented step of proscribing...a 1916 commemoration ceremony" to "The Irish government discontinued the annual parade in the early 1970s, and in 1976 it took the unprecedented step of proscribing..." Scolaire (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with that.--Padraig (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the changes make sence. --Domer48 (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

After adding in that bit I discovered that the discontinuation of the parades was in the section after all. What has happened is that with various edits the section has become quite disjointed. I think it might be no harm to re-arrange the section, without nessessarily changing any of the text, to improve the flow. Scolaire (talk) 11:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am taking the liberty of deleting citations of Eoin Neeson where another source is also cited and Neeson isn't the primary source. That way he is cited where relevant but he is not given "too much weight". Two things struck me along the way:

  • "...a plan involving a military victory was never a consideration; while the Leaders considered there would be some military success, an overall military victory was never an objective...": that does actually repeat itself. Is there a way to rephrase the last part of that sentence? Or even leave it out? Something like: "...a plan involving a military victory was never a consideration, although the leaders considered there would be some military success."
  • "The IRB was represented by Joseph Plunkett (who travelled to Berlin in 1915) in addition to his father Count Plunkett, and Roger Casement. Casement was never a member of the IRB, and was kept unaware of the degree that the IRB had infiltrated the Volunteers, for whom he viewed himself as the representative." That is a contradiction: you cannot represent a party if you are not a member and are not aware that it is a party to the talks. Maybe re-phrase to: "...in addition to his father Count Plunkett. Roger Casement was also present, but viewed himself as the representative of the Volunteers. Casement was never a member of the IRB, and was kept unaware of the degree that the IRB had infiltrated the Volunteers."

Scolaire (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

They are all reasonable changes, and I would have no problems with them at all. They read much better now. --Domer48 (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the part about the Plunketts and Casement should be rephrased to better illustrate the situation as it was. That phrasing sort of makes it sounds like they were all sitting around the table together, discussing the plans, which is not the case. It's a pretty complex situation, really. -R. fiend (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Made the change before I saw this. Can you come up with an alternative phrasing? I'm not really familiar with this part of the story. Scolaire (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Plunkett and Casement drew up and presented a plan for the Rising to the Germans, this plan became known as the "Ireland Report." The thing is though, Plunkett was having parallel and secret meetings unknown to Casement, were he discussed the actual plans of the IRB. I will put a little something together on Casements role, and run it by you. --Domer48 (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improving the article

Myself and One Night in Hackney were intending to do a major re-write back in July, but between one thing and another it didn't happen at that time. Here are some ideas that I put to him at the time:

  1. I don't really like the division into "the outbreak of the Rising" and "British reinforcements arrive". It suggests that the Rising had two phases, a bit like WWF: one where the Irish jumped all over the British and the other where the British jumped all over the Irish. It also leads to overlap and confusion in the chronology. I suggest perhaps "Outbreak of the Rising", "The fighting in Dublin, Tuesday - Thursday", "The evacuation of the GPO" and "Surrender". It would then be a question of whether "The Rising outside Dublin" should stay at the end, where it is, or be slotted in after "The fighting in Dublin, Tuesday - Thursday", which might be more logical.
  2. The point needs to be made that the issue was not settled by gun-battles, of which there were really only two that were decisive - at the South Dublin Union and at Northumberland Road - but by artillery. The destruction of the GPO knocked out the nerve-centre of the Rising and caused Pearse to order a general surrender, which shocked many leaders who still felt they were winning. I do not mean that this should be stated as a bald fact, but rather that it should be a thread running through the whole narrative, so that it doesn't end up - as it is now - as a whole lot of isolated actions and then suddenly they surrendered for no obvious reason. That's why I suggest "evacuation of the GPO" as a section; it was these things - the destruction of GHQ, the attempt to tunnel through Moore Street, the struggle to carry Connolly on a stretcher, the death of O'Rahilly and the ongoing reassessment of the situation by the leaders huddled in a small room, that led to the decision to surrender, rather than anything that was going on elsewhere
  3. On the subject of artillery, the myth persists, and is perpetuated here, that the "gunboat" Helga (she was actually a fisheries protection vessel) did all the damage. In fact, Helga's only action of note was against the empty Liberty Hall, and even here, Townshend says that she needed help from the big guns. The shelling of O'Connell Street was carried out by two 18-pounders brought out of Trinity College and placed - somewhat unsteadily - in Tara Street (Townshend, p191).
  4. Quote: "Reinforcements were rushed to Dublin from England, along with a new commander, General John Maxwell." In fact, Maxwell didn't arrive until the early hours of Friday morning (Townshend, p208). It's not clear to me to what extent he was directing activities (e.g. the shelling) before his arrival, but his first obvious input was the dictation of surrender terms (Pearse in fact surrendered to Gen. Lowe), and his biggest contribution was of course the courts-martial, executions and internment. Foy & Barton seem to cover his role in more detail, so I hope to re-read it again soon.
  5. I would like to see more about the role of Dublin Castle in the Rising. I am currently reading Leon Ó Broin's Dublin Castle and the 1916 Rising, which has a lot of useful stuff in it. I propose first to expand the Nathan, Birrell and Wimborne articles, and then see how the information can be used here.
  6. In Dublin, I would like to see more detail on the fighting in Northumberland Road in particular, but also in the South Dublin Union where Cathal Brugha was literally left for dead but carried on shooting people like Bruce Willis until the British (again literally) walked over him on their way to cleaning the place out. Also, the whole Bowen-Colthurst/Sheehy-Skeffington episode is missing. It might also be worth mentioning the killing of civilians in North King Street (Townshend, p206).
  7. In the rest of the country, I think that Ashbourne should be promoted to top spot and described in much more detail, with Dick Mulcahy being mentioned by name. This should be followed by Galway, and then the other areas in any order.

Scolaire (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestions sound good. Here's my two cents: I think the Rising outside Dublin should be kept in a separate section at the end, so as to not disrupt the narrative of the action in Dublin, which is, let's face it, where the most important events were occurring. The other actions almost might as well have been completely separate incidents. I think Skeffy should certainly be mentioned, but not gone into in too much detail (he has his own article for that) as it is just one event which, though significant, didn't really have any impact on the Rising as a whole. As for the surrender, if memory serves, Caulfield stated that one of the final incidents that convinced Pearse to surrender was seeing a family of civilians gunned down by the Brits, making him realize that continuing the conflict would only result in more such deaths. They had basically done as much as they could do, and met at least some of their goals. So good ideas, and well spotted on some of those flaws (I hadn't noticed that the article gave the impression that Helga did all the shelling, and that should certainly be remedied). I would also like to suggest that the Background section be broken up so it isn't one big paragraph. I can do that myself though. -R. fiend (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I had a look at Caulfield and I think you might have misread it. It talks about the killing of a family in King Street and in the next paragraph we see Pearse starting to talk about surrender, but the two are not connected. He certainly did not witness the killing, and was probably unaware of it since communications had been cut off by then. The discussion in Moore Lane centered on the possible consequences to civilians of them (the GPO garrison) trying to break out, and when the cost in innocent lives seemed too dear they decided to surrender. Scolaire (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I must be misremembering then. It's been a few years since I read it. Thanks. -R. fiend (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I just looked it up, and it seems we're looking at different passages. Here's what it says on page 273: "An incident had occurred which had decided Pearse that surrender was necessary. Robert Dillon, licensee of The Flag, a public house on Moore Street, his premises set on fire by a burning fragment from the GPO, had ventured out into the street with his wife and daughter, carrying a white flag. The military had chopped them down mercilessly under the very eyes of Pearse, who turned away sickened." It then goes on about Pearse's decision to surrender based on the certainty of further civilian casualties if they fought on. I'm not saying this specifically needs to be mentioned in the article, but there it is. -R. fiend (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed it is! I even read that page and still missed that passage! Humblest apologies. Scolaire (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I was slightly concerned there for a bit, as I thought I remembered that incident a bit too clearly to have completely made it up. I don't mind forgetting things, but imagining things that never happened is troublesome. -R. fiend (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice work Scolaire, good overall outline. There is a new book just released which focuses on the battle at Mount Street Bridge. "Blood on the Streets" I think it's called, that should be helpful. --Domer48 (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I read about it in the paper today. At least it seems to be within my price range :-) Scolaire (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Just picked it up today, will read it tonight. 118 pages + index. --Domer48 (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:11gpo191~11.jpg

Image:11gpo191~11.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dublin Castle

I have finally done my expansion of the Matthew Nathan article. I hope to do Birrell and Wimborne in the next week or so and then add in the relevant information here Scolaire (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice one, fair play. --Domer48 (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Easterlily.jpg

Dose this coprighted image meet the criteria for inclusions, and if it doesn't then why is it being used? Fasach Nua (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Answer your own question before you remove it again? --Domer48 (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The answer is "no", you don't even have to go past the first point of the criteria for inclusions, Im at my 3RR limit with this image, would you remove please it Domer48, thanks Fasach Nua (talk)

[edit] Prominent Easter Rising IRA members

I agree with deleting that section. I didn't feel it added anything to the article. Scolaire (talk) 12:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it seemed a bit arbitrary and didn't add much. However, I think Hackney is mistaken in that most of those names were not mentioned elsewhere in the article, which is the reason I didn't delete it myself. -R. fiend (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with deleting that section, the list did not lend anyrhing to the article, and could possibly have just kept getting bigger. --Domer48 (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, R. fiend, they were people that were not prominent in the Rising; I think what was actually intended was Easter Rising participants who became prominent IRA members, and that's why I think they were surplus to requirements. Scolaire (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some small changes

I made a few small changes which I didn't think could be adequately explained in the edit summary so here goes. Auld Orangie's mention of the Unionist's use of the term Rome Rule seemed relevant to me, so I put it back in, in context. I removed one footnote for Kee's Bold Fenian Men, as it didn't give a page number, and only referenced the fact that Unionists, Tories, and lords were all opposed to Home Rule, which is common knowledge to anyone who knows anything about the subject. I also removed to word "violently" in reference to their opposition as seeming a bit POV. Not all of them were "violent" so I replaced it with "steadfastly" as the best word off the top of my head. I'm open to other NPOV phrasing. -R. fiend (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to take a shot at redoing footnote 11. I think there are about a dozen references for that one statement (one of them mentioned twice) which is overkill, and strikes me as argumentative. In general, a statement that can be be referenced by any book on the subject is the sort of thing that does not need a footnote. This is a special case, as it deals with the IRB's hand in the formation of the Volunteers, which is the subject of some controversy. However, the phrasing we have now is neutral enough that it doesn't need overkill of this sort. 2 or 3 is more than enough, though I'd like to hear thoughts on which 2 or 3 or most significant. Kathleen Clarke should probably go, as she's not a historian and had no involvement with the formation of the Volunteers. I'm thinking the works that deal most closely with the subjects of the Volunteers and the IRB would be best. -R. fiend (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy with just the one reference myself, but remember why it took so many to have the information kept. I would also like to see the sentance re-worded to properly reflect the role of the IRB. That the Volunteers were discussed in November 1913, yet the IRB had been drilling its members since January of that year will and should be mentioned. This will place the role of MacNeill in its proper context, and also that of the IRB. Simply, the Volunteers were and always were a front establish by the IRB. MacNeill was sought out by them, to act as a figurehead. What happened after, i.e. control, Redmond and the split should not pose any particular problems, but who knows? --Domer48 (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

We've been over this quite a bit already, the view that the Volunteers were a puppet of the IRB is not the only view of the situation, and not backed up by some of the sources even in that footnote. The IRB never had complete control of the Volunteers (at least not before the Rising), who always remained a separate and independent organization. There were many factors in the formation of the Volunteers, and indeed the IRB were a big one, but not the only one. Besides, the details of this belong in the article on the Volunteers, and are out of the scope of this article. The current phrasing of that section has been put in place because it is accurate and reflective of both views of the situation. Additionally, any drilling by the IRB in the previous months may have been a prelude to it, but it was entirely separate from the formation of the Volunteers. -R. fiend (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
“ In January 1913, however, the Ulster Volunteer Force was established and this prompted Bulmer Hobson (the co-founder of the republican boy-scouts, Fianna Eireann) to tell his Dublin IRB following that they should use this as an excuse to try to persuade the public to form an Irish volunteer force. James Stritch, an old IRB activist of the Parnell era who grew up with Jim Boland in Manchester, immediately had a drilling hall built behind the Wolfe Tone Clubs headquarters (41 Parnell Square, the former site of the National Club, now the Foresters’ Hall) and he together with some much younger members of Fianna Eireann, began drilling a small number of IRB followers associated with the Dublin GAA, which was led by Jim Boland’s son, Harry. ”

Owen McGee, The IRB, p. 353-4

“ The long-predicted climax seemed less remote after 1913, when the IRB began to drill in preparation for an open organisation of Irish Volunteers, just as the Orange Institution had anticipated the creation of the Ulster Volunteer Force. As Gerald recalled: Jim Stritch got the Foresters to build a large Hall at the back of 41 [Rutland Square] and the LR.B. men started to learn foot-drill and simple military movements, in anticipation of the formation of Volunteers… ”

David Fitzpatrick, Harry Boland’s Irish Revolution, p.34

The reason there is so many references is because you would not accept the wording, and now you do. Now here are two references to back up what I'm saying. You have the McGee book, so no excuses. The wording is not compleatly accurate, but I compromised, though I had produced twelve references. Now if you want, you can word these two sources so that it reflects accurately on the role of the IRB, or I will, simple really. --Domer48 (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, what you're citing is examples of the IRB doing its own drilling, this is not the Volunteers, but rather independent actions preluding it. O'Rahilly, in his The Secret History of the Volunteers, talks of a previous organization in Athlone called the "Midland Volunteers", an unconfirmed group were reportedly doing much the same thing, but like the IRB's drilling around the same time, it was not the beginning of the Irish Volunteers as they came to exist in November 1913. Your source even says they were drilling "in preparation". They were getting ready for a national organization that they expected was coming, and would help create, but that doesn't make the Volunteers a wing of the IRB. If you feel the IRB's drilling in the months before the formation of the Volunteers, then go ahead and include it in the articles on the IRB and the Volunteers, if you haven't already, but it is relevant enough to the Rising to be included here. -R. fiend (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You see McGee also cites Hobson's Ireland yesterday and tomorrow, when referencing this information. Now my time for editing is a resource, and one I have decided not to waste. The quoted references are quite clear, and support what I have outlined above. Now you can spin away all you want, the information will be going in. So find a source that supports your opinion, and states that the formation of the Volunteers was not a front organisation planned by the IRB as early as 1913. Simple as , --Domer48 (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing you've cited says the Volunteers were a "front organization", all you've managed to do is find sources that say the IRB had the goal of establishing a paramilitary force, which they had a hand in doing, and were drilling men in preparation for this. To go from "the IRB was drilling men in 1913" to "The Volunteers was a puppet organization, conceived, built, and run by the IRB" is well beyond any sort of rational view of the situation. Do you have any source that calls the Volunteers a "front"? You have not cited one. -R. fiend (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Come back when you have something useful, I've material to put together for another article and have not got the time for your time wasting. --Domer48 (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "I have no sources calling the Volunteers a front for the IRB, but I'll be adding it to numerous articles anyway." At least we know where you're coming from now. -R. fiend (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

To get back to your actual edit: the Rome Rule article is awful, and should be deleted; I had no idea that article existed. "Steadfastly" is not really a useful word - either they were violently opposed (and I'm pretty sure I can find sources that say that both Bonar Law and Lord Lansdowne explicitly threatened violence) or they were simply opposed. Either way, this is far more relevant to the Home Rule Act 1914 than to the Easter Rising, and that section is far too long already without adding more qualifiers. Why not cut it down to just "Ulster Unionists opposed to home rule formed the Ulster Volunteer Force on 13 January 1913"? Scolaire (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Rome Rule article certainly needs work, but that's a separate issue (I'll take a quick swipe at fixing it after this). I do think it helps if the article alludes to why so many Ulster Protestants were so opposed to the Home Rule Bill, and the fear of a government run on Catholic principles is a big part of that. And I don't think the background is all that long, as quite bit of background is needed to fully understand the Rising. As for "violently", well, certainly there are those who threatened or implied violence, but I think it is unfair and POV to characterize all Unionists, Tories, and the House of Lords as violent. "Opposed" on it's own works for me, but might not be strong phrasing enough for some. -R. fiend (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm changing the wording slightly. Saying "Unionists etc. opposed..." rather than "Unionists etc. were opposed..." is less milk-and-water IMO. I don't agree that fear of Catholic government was the main factor in their opposition, though, and I would like to see a reference to that. Opposition to the breaking of the Union, to loss of control, and to being governed by the peasants from the South were far larger issues than the religious one, and the current wording gives a distorted picture, especially of the attitude in westminster, both Commons and Lords.
I've also replaced the Kee reference. You should never delete the first reference of the "ref name=" type without doing the necessary housekeeping (see reference 5 in your edit). Scolaire (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:BAN "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them". If any further proxying for banned editors or abuse of rollback in a content dispute takes place I will be raising this matter elsewhere. One Night In Hackney303 19:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Background and referencing

Peter I agree with your recent edits, and having made some efforts to cite sources on the article, might I suggest we should insist on same being provided with the introduction of new material. This is very important were text is added to referenced information, and not supported by the source provided. As you are aware, I have adopted a long term project which will take up a lot of my time, a limited resource all editors share. My fall back position, would be to insist on our policies being upheld. Regards, --Domer48 (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's pretty well accepted by everyone involved at this stage. A gentle reminder should be all that's necessary. Scolaire (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Rising

As I said above, the chronology in this section was all over the place. Additionally, there was a great deal of opinion, a certain amount of irrelevancy, a lot that was spurious (Helga could not shell O'Connell Street without hitting the Viceregal Lodge??) and most of it was written in a very unpleasant, sneering tone. So, I have stripped it down to the bare bones (but keeping existing text as far a possible), replaced the subheadings with a temporary "the Rising in Dublin" and put it back in chronological order. I suggest we now expand this appropriately, with inline citations, maybe using the WikiProject Military history guidelines. Scolaire (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have removed a bit too much in some places, but I suppose the relevant information can be added back in. As to the comments above, I never said objection to Roman Catholicism was the main reason for Ulster opposition, but it was one of many factors, and one they were certainly vocal about (perhaps because it's not very complicated, unlike economic issues). They certainly used the term "Rome Rule" in Ulster (people just love puns when sloganeering; that trait seems universal). Also, I think I'm going to remove both the Kee footnotes. They don't specify a page, and are only used to reference common knowledge anyway (Unionists opposed dissolution of the Union??? Surely not!). -R. fiend (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, my idea was that anything you think belongs can be added back in, suitably referenced. With the "Rome Rule" thing, I'm not denying it was an argument, but the way it's phrased at the moment suggests it was the main or only argument, for the Tories and the Lords as well as the Unionists. Any chance of re-wording? I'm not bothered about the Kee refs one way or another as long as it's done right, and nobody else objects. Scolaire (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I never object to rewording if it's done well. I think you're right in that it does erroneously make it seem like a argument made by Lords and Tories when it was, I believe, mostly a Ulster Protestant issue. That should be rephrased.
There are certainly things removed from the combat portion of the article that I think really should be included, and I'm not really relishing the idea of going through numerous books I haven't read in 5 years in an effort to find page numbers for everything, but I'll do what I can. Some significant details that I believe were removed include the effect of the smaller than expected turnout on the overall plan, Connolly's belief that the Brits wouldn't use artillery (I'm pretty sure he was banking on this, and when the first shell came it was the beginning of the end), some of the details of the battle plan and who came up with them, the looting, and some of the specifics of the battles fought throughout the city. -R. fiend (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Re the battle plan, I removed the following paragraph because the previous section was "Planning the Rising" and this one is "The Rising". The effects of the smaller turnout is relevant but it needs to go in the right place and be specific as to what those effects were. The rest might be worked into the foregoing "Planning" section:

  • The original plan, largely devised by Plunkett (and apparently very similar to a plan worked out independently by Connolly), was to seize strategic buildings throughout Dublin in order to cordon off the city, and resist the inevitable counter-attack by the British army. If successful, the plan would have left the rebels holding a compact area of central Dublin, roughly bounded by the canals and the circular roads. However, this strategy would have required more men than the 1,600 or so who were actually mobilized on Easter Monday. As a result, the rebels left several key points within the city, notably Dublin Castle, Trinity College, and the old Parliament building in College Green in British hands. In the west of the country, local units with limited numbers and arms intended to try to hold the west bank of the river Shannon for as long as possible.

I don't believe the seizure of the Castle or Trinity was ever a part of the plan, so to give that as a 'result' is erroneous. I'm pretty sure I didn't leave out any (verifiable) specifics of battles. The other things you mention could well go back in, but again it's a question of where and how. Scolaire (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't aware that they ever planned to take the Castle or Trinity either. That they really should have is a different issue. Looking over the article again, I guess there isn't as much of some aspects removed as I thought at first (the annoying thing about diffs is that moving things around makes changes appear bigger than they are). That being said, I'd like to maybe see mention of the charge of the lancers on O'Connell St., the Mendicity Institution, some reference made to the first battalion's actions, and a little more detail in a few other areas. -R. fiend (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree to all of those - they are things that were never in the article, and I'm looking forward to them being added. Scolaire (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rephrasing of Unionist opposition

I changed the bit about violet opposition to Home Rule to better reflect what the sources say (at least the source I have: Kee BFM p.170-2). While certainly some Tories encouraged violence, there's no evidence all of them did, and I didn't see any reference to violent opposition by Lords at all. The only group that can be said to be completely violently opposed were the Ulster Volunteers. All were generally opposed, but I've seen nothing stating that all were violently opposed, although Bonar Law and some others did use such language. -R. fiend (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Bonar Law didn't encourage violence, he threatened it. One Night In Hackney303 21:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As did Churchill. --Domer48 (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to expand this paragraph, I'd like to see it re-worded to reflect the fact that the term "Unionist" in 1912 referred to the coalition of Tories and Liberal Unionists, which formally merged in 1912 to form the "Conservative and Unionist Party" (see History of the Conservative Party#The Unionist Ascendancy) more than the Irish Unionist Party or the Ulster Unionist Council. It was these English Unionists that provided most of the political opposition to the Home Rule Bill. Ulster unionists - with a small "u" - formed the UVF and were supported in their threats of violent opposition by Bonar Law and other members of his party in both the Commons and the Lords. Scolaire (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll give the exact text from Geraghty to avoid confusion:

[Bonar Law] spoke of resistance to Home Rule "beyond the restraints of the constitution". He added ominously "There are things stronger than parliamentary majorities". He justified this threat of force...."

Pretty clear you'd all agree? One Night In Hackney303 22:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a report in the New York Times quoting Lord Lansdowne as saying "that the opposition would not guarantee that Ulster's exclusion would prevent civil war". Not a threat of violence, exactly, but not exactly a repudiation of violence either. Note that, again, "civil war" did not necessarily mean civil war in Ireland only. Scolaire (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just got a copy of Irish Home Rule 1867-1921 by Alan O'Day, anyone read it yet, should be a lot in it on the above subject. --Domer48 (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I've read bits of it in Google Books. I think it will bear out much of what I said above. See this page for instance, with its reference to Bonar Law leading the Unionists out of the House of Commons. Scolaire (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The basics !

The offical name is the " 1916 easter rising ".

It is called the easter rising because it took place in easter week.

It took place mainly in Dublin

It wasa rebellion against the British to win independence.

It went on for 6 days.

Yes there were bombings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.80.22 (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)