Jump to content

Talk:Easter Rising

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconIrish republicanism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish republicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish republicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish republicanismIrish Republicanism articles
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kyehen.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sinn Féin Rebellion

[edit]

The Rising was not "described in some sources" as the Sinn Fein Rebellion. It was almost universally referred to as such at the time. I have linked to four contemporary documents that make this clear. The Sinn Fein Rebellion Handbook was published by the Irish Times in 1916; the link is to a 1917 reprint. Anyone with a subscription to the Irish Newspaper Archive can verify the almost universal use of "Sinn Fein Rebellion" in 1916. Can Guliolopez or anybody else provide documentary evidence, either in primary or secondary sources, that "Easter Rising" was the more common appellation in 1916? No, because it wasn't. Where I put it was the correct place, because it described the situation in the immediate aftermath of the Rising, and provided context for the following statement that "General Maxwell quickly signalled his intention 'to arrest all dangerous Sinn Feiners'...reflecting the popular belief that Sinn Féin, a separatist organisation that was neither militant nor republican, was behind the Rising. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:ACDB:179:2E1D:899 (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:ACDB:179:2E1D:899. And welcome. On your points:
  • RE: "not 'described in some sources'". I changed the proposed text (from "generally referred to as the Sinn Fein Rebellion" to "described in some sources as the Sinn Fein Rebellion") because it is not "generally referred to as the Sinn Fein Rebellion" by the vast majority of modern sources. Which generally (almost universally) refer to it as the Easter Rising. If the intent is to confirm that we're talking about contemporary references (c.1916/1917), then perhaps "described in many contemporary sources" is an appropriate compromise(?)
  • RE: "Sinn Fein Rebellion Handbook was published by the Irish Times in 1916". I've only ever seen the 1917 issue - as here in the NLI or this digitisation. The latter online version being described as "published by the Irish Times in 1917 (..) based on articles carried in the Irish Times in May 1916". If there was an earlier issue, can we provide a source/ref for that?
  • RE: "Where I put it was the correct place, because it described the situation in the immediate aftermath of the Rising [and led into the Maxwell quote]". In all honesty, the "Arrests and executions" section didn't immediately seem an ideal placement. And it just seemed a bit clunky/standalone. But I understand the point. If we want to cover the perceived Sinn Féin association there (not least so that the Maxwell quote makes a bit more sense), then I'm happy to help stitch it in. There.
GRMA. Guliolopez (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. My edit didn't say "Generally referred to as the Sinn Fein Rebellion", it said "The Rising was generally referred to as the Sinn Fein Rebellion". If you think that is unclear, it could be changed to "In its immediate aftermath, the Rising was generally referred to as the Sinn Fein Rebellion." The "certain sources" type phrasing has the effect of suggesting "there were some people that said that but..." If you're not disputing that it was called that then there's no need for the word "sources".
  2. I wouldn't really rate irishfamilyhistorycentre.com as a quality source. The archive.org page says "1917 issue", as does the blurry image on your link, so it's safe to assume there was a previous (1916) issue. In any case, it's a trivial issue, since one way or another it shows that Sinn Fein Rebellion was the term in use at that time.
  3. The problem with the "Arrests and executions" section is that there's no lead-in to the "Aftermath" section, so unless you want it to be a standalone sentence before "Arrests and executions", it would be better to "stitch it in there", as you say. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:ACDB:179:2E1D:899 (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya. RE:
  • "[2x source] says '1917 issue' [..] so safe to assume there was a previous (1916) issue". Probably best not to assume. I've referenced the 1917 issue. I don't think there's any reason to mention and/or to presume the existence of an earlier version.
  • "Better to stitch it in". I've made an attempted to "stitch in" with this edit. I think it's a reasonable compromise. And leverages the pre-existing "popular belief that Sinn Féin [..] was behind the Rising" text.
Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly better than the previous edit, but I still think that saying "the Rising was described by some as the "Sinn Féin Rebellion", reflecting a popular belief that Sinn Féin...was behind it" is still a trifle mealy-mouthed. It seems that you have never heard the name before, but I've been hearing it all my life, so much so that I can no longer remember what books I saw it in. In the spirit of compromise, could you not at least elevate it to "by many", which is consistent with "a popular belief"? 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:3DF4:2A77:8D0B:EACA (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to a postcard before, but here is the catalogue of postcards at the UCD Digital Library. You will see how prevalent "Sinn Fein Rebellion" is, although "Irish rebellion" is also used. "Easter Rising/Rebellion" is nowhere to be seen. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:3DF4:2A77:8D0B:EACA (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And here is the catalogue in the National Library. I make it 30 items titled "Sinn Fein Rebellion". 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:3DF4:2A77:8D0B:EACA (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. RE:

  • "at least elevate it to 'by many'(?)". I've changed it to "routinely". And added one of the postcards refs. As seems a reasonable compromise/reflection. (I would otherwise advocate against relative/subjective terms. Like "many". As, frankly, how many is "many"? Is it more than "some"? Less than "lots"?)
  • "'Easter Rising/Rebellion' is nowhere to be seen". I'm not sure what you're saying here. Regardless of whether it was called the Easter Rising at the time/afterwards, that is its COMMONNAME now. And has been for some time. (World War I wasn't called "World War I" at the time/afterwards either...?)

If an argument is being made for further changes (like elevating "Sinn Féin Rebellion" further, including over "Easter Rising") then I'd welcome input from others. I've limited interest in engaging/debating further on this (or that) point. Guliolopez (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with "routinely" as an alternative to "some" (another subjective term). Don't worry about my "nowhere to be seen" comment; I fully acknowledge that it was fatuous. I don't want to see this taken further. The only reason for my edit was this edit summary of yours saying that it should be covered in the article body and that an explanation needed to be given. I think we've achieved that. Thank you for your help and your patience. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:18EA:AE75:5F52:6CA7 (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did someone say something about WW1? Could the Easter Rising be connected to the Great War? Hmmmmmmmmmmm...2601:85:C100:46C0:C51A:2566:AF10:9013 (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stewardship

[edit]

WP:SHEPHERD should be in effect here. For example, the article currently contains no mention at all of the Howth gun-running. All mention of this, including a link to the article in question was removed here stating RMV of source and relevant information. The source was inadequate, being made for a primary educational context. Information corresponding was removed but will be reinstated if relevant and covered by reliable sources. You'd hope with all the other references they've added (while ignoring all the standard books covering the Rising.....) they might have come across this incident at some point? Some, or perhaps anyone competent, might consider that people planning an armed uprising imported 1,500 rifles a rather important fact that needs to be in the article.... FDW777 (talk) 10:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for the direct connection between the two? It was after all an event that took place about two years earlier. The Banner talk 11:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A very quick search gave me this TCD page. The gunrunning is dealt with in detail in Charles Townshend's Easter 1916: The Irish Rebellion (2006, pp. 54–6). I can't imagine anyone familiar with the Rising not knowing that the Howth rifles played a significant part. Scolaire (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to ask for sources instead of believing the obvious. :-) The Banner talk 17:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am also alarmed with the way this article is being edited by DMT Biscuit, deleting large chunks at a time while adding multiple minor anecdotes (with citations, of course). I initially thought I'd let them finish their edits before commenting or editing myself, but it has just gone on relentlessly. Some SHEPHERDing is definitely called for, I think, but I don't think I'd be up to the task. Scolaire (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am indeed uneasy with the edits of DMT Biscuit but knowledge is insufficient to judge them. Do you have a proposal which details should be cut? The Banner talk 17:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to go back through more than 250 edits, so I'm afraid the answer is no. I spend very little time on Wikipedia nowadays. Scolaire (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In honesty, my own thoughts are somewhat mirrored by several noted above. That some of the recent edits (such as this removal of cited content which excised the "Frongoch/ollscoil na réabhlóide/War of Independence" connection as "trivia") gave me pause. To the extent that I restored it - only to see it removed again as somehow "redundant". Similarly, I noted that despite inviting other editors to revert content deletions "if disagree" when other editors did revert because they disagreed, DMT Biscuit just blanked the same content again. This culling of content seemed more than a little aggressive to me (and the rejection of others intervening edits somewhat concerning) to the extent that, similar to Scolaire, I'd intended to review the article/changes as a whole - once the bullish editing was finished. But the changes just seemed to keep coming - Weeks becoming months, dozens of edits becoming hundreds. If DMT Biscuit is (hopefully) now finished (and genuine in their "take to talk if disagree" or "restore if disagree" invitations), then I'd certainly welcome the space/time for other editors to review what's been done.... Guliolopez (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the concerns raised by others here. It would be good to see some engagement from DMT Biscuit on the Talk page. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this edit referred to by @Guliolopez:, I can see the merits of some of it, since the "ollscoil na réabhlóide" and Michael Collins is mentioned in the paragraph immediately below. And personally, I don't see the need to explain that prisoners were "the future Hollywood actor Arthur Shields" (a plain old "Arthur Shields" would to the job just as well, similarly "sportsman and referee Tom Burke". But of course if things like that are properly explained in edit summaries or by dropping a quick explanation on the talk page, everyone would understand a little better. FDW777 (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Easter_Rising&oldid=1255441386"