Talk:Patrick Pearse/Archive 1

Patrick Pearse

As this is the name he was born under, I think this is probably the best place to put the entry for Patrick(Pádraic,Padraic,Padráig, Padraig) Pearse(MacPiarais). A search on google finds no consistency for spellings of his Gaelic(ized)? name.

True enough - I forgot that we are supposed to spell everything the "English" way on these pages. Deb

About the homesexuality mention - be patient and civil with eachother

Wikipedia does not exist as mouthpiece for people to post personal information only they know or to attack people who have some deep motivation to keep calling this man a "homo." The rumors have existed for a long time. Because of that and the fact that the specualtion about his sexual identity has been printed in biographies and other works, it is correct to cautiously include the information in an encyclopedia entry. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a biography or an "approved" history.

If those well-meaning scholars who have access to private papers describing Pearse's relationships with women and/or will substantiate these romances they should. I have also been told that he had a child with a woman and that the shame of this illegitimate birth is why nobody will name names. Whatever.

Talk to those who hold the authentic papers and explain to them that for whatever reason, calling an Irish Republican of the past a "homo" seems to be politically correct these days. Let them know that the papers they hold could be provided to a scholar of repute who could edit them with decency and publish on the subject. Once somebody quotes a primary source in print or publishes an article on the net that cites such sources, you can then bring that info here and link to it. Only "proof" of that nature will end the speculation you so dislike.

The other thing I would like to ask is that everyone stop arguing as if being a homosexual man is a crime. In Pearse's day it was literally a crime but we're a little wiser than that now. So whether you believe it or not, his sexual identity is ONLY a fact in dispute, not the end of Irish pride if proven to be true. Have a civil tongue for love of Mike and come back with sources and citations. I understand your upset, but it was his supporters who first brought up pederasty. if you don't understand how Wikipedia works, leave me a note on my talk page and I'll explain it to you. Be aware that only living people have libel protection on Wikipedia.Lisapollison 21:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal Life Section

This section leaves a bad taste in my mouth after reading it. Would it be such an outlandish suggestion that Pearse was a bit of an overly-political type rather than a closet case?? Quoting sources that are horrendously biased seems like a poor basis for an entire section.GiollaUidir 19:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Erm, I don't know if this is relevant, true or what anybody wants, but my school textbook asserts that Pearse was a cross-dresser in his youth. I could get the title and author if anyone thinks it's relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.210.201 (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

IRB membership

Though there is some controversy as to when Pearse joined the IRB, I believe it's generally agreed that he joined in December 1913 or early 1914. Most sources list him as being elevated to the Military Council and the Supreme Council in 1915. Also, I think it should be mentioned that he was one of the leaders of the Irish Volunteers. His role as Director of Military Organisation was much more important than whether or not he may have had homosexual tendencies. R. fiend

I made the above changes and added alot of stuff. I moved alot around, but don't think I deleted much at all. Anyway, I'll probably polish it up a bit more later. -R. fiend

As curator of the Pearse Museum, I have edited the article quite extensively today. On the issue of Pearse's homosexuality, the evidence for this is circumstantial at best. Whether Pearse was or was not a homosexual must remain a subject of speculation, until someone can produce convincing evidence. There is, no doubt, a strain of homoeroticism in his writings, and particularly in some of his poems. However, this is not proof that Pearse was a practicing homosexual, unlike Sir Roger Casement, whose (now authenticated) Black Diaries reveal that he was.

A curator of the Pearse museum ought to know better than to even bring up the whole homosexuality issue. You of all people know better. You work daily among the memorobilia of his life. You know him as intimately as anyone else living. --RoseP 03:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I like the rewrite in general (I never liked that bit about homosexuality), but I think some points were deleted unnecessarily, particularly about his role in the Rising, and about MacNeill. Most sources seem to indicate that the leaders of the Rising were hoping to bring MacNeill onboard as their figurehead President until the last minute, when he refused to sign the proclamation. Also the "defeat" of the Home Rule Bill by the House of Lords is misleading. Lords couldn't defeat it; they only had the power to delay it. The real threat to the Bill was the Ulster Volunteers. -R. fiend 04:54, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Patrick Pearse was not homosexual. I have been researching his life for several years, including tracing people in the Rosmuc area of Galway who remember him, or whose parents or grandparents left written documents like letters or diaries in which they mentioned him. And there is evidence that he had a perfectly normal heterosexual relationship that might have got further if he had not died. Most of the critics who say he was gay have never looked at his life properly. they go by the existing published sources and make assumptions about his poetry. This has been the case for nearly half a century of writing about him. Nobody has ever looked beyond the obvious sources. But the truth is completely different. And it is time the revisionists get off their comfy office chairs and did some field research. The view of Pearse in the gaeltacht of Galway is completely different to that held elsewhere.

--GalwaySue 03:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) I have much more I should like to add of my personal research into Patrick Pearse, but I am concerned it will be re-edited and misconstrued. People seem determined to force the issue about homosexuality. I know for certain that he is not honosexual.

The problem is that wikipedia has a policy against original research. While I do not personally believe that Pearse was homosexual, I fail to see how anyone can absolutely prove that he was not a passive, albeit not practicing homosexual; the best one can try to do is refute evidence to the contrary. In any case, the article does not state that he was homosexual, although the accusations have been made, and it would be remiss of wikipedia not to mention as much. -R. fiend 06:36, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I have some absolute proof that he was not. But I am not in a position to publish it and I don't think I would even if I was, because there is clearly a political agenda to destroy Pearse's reputation that would only harm innocent living people as well. But even within the existing public domain there is no evidence, only scurrilous revisionist rumour that says he was homosexual. There are no facts whatever. There is NOTHING in his writings that suggest that he is. Only dirty-minded people could interpret his poems in such a way. I think its time decent people stopped looking for scandal and started treating a good, kind, honourable and brave man a lot better than they have since 1977 when Ruth Dudley Edwards set this ball rolling with her unfounded assertions.

By the way, what is your qualification to write about Pearse, R. Fiend? Mine is a postgraduate degree from Galway university and several years of private research of his life and works.--84.65.149.133 02:06, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

--GalwaySue 02:08, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My qualifications aren't as impresive as yours, but I have read many of his fictional works, some of his poetry, some of his letters and a couple of his biographies (yes, including the Edwards bio, who, as I recall, never made the claim that he was gay, and was not the one to popularize the idea, but did address the point and came to the conclusion that he was more asexual than anything). Anyway, I hardly think accusations of homosexuality are a terribly important aspect of his life. Even if he were gay (and, as I said before, I don't believe he was) it's hardly the character assassination it once was. There was a time when, if one wanted to defend Roger Casement in any way whatsoever one would first have to refute allegations of his homosexuality. Today one can admit that he likely was gay, and still defend his actions. In any case, I am intrigued by this proof you discovered, and am curious about this political agenda you speak of, and wonder who these living innocent people are that stand to be harmed. -R. fiend 03:31, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It matters because of the efforts of the current government to vilify Republicanism. 'heroes' of the past are brought down by whatever wedge they can find - in Pearse's case presenting him not just as homosexual, but a paedophile. Present day republicans are lambasted in the press by the likes of Kevin Myers and those who adhere to such principles are labelled as cranks and marginalised minorities. Meanwhile even the principles of the Republic men like Pearse stood for are being eroded by people like Michael McDowell and John Bruton who claim that the Rising was not necessary and that Ireland should consider rejoining the British Commonwealth with the Queen as head of state. Such ideas could only be mooted in Ireland if the Republican tradition is destroyed. Destroying Pearse's reputation is part of that.

As for the evidence of Pearse's private life, I was given a priviliged chance to read unpublished documents in private hands, but they are not for publication by any form, least of all something as insecure as this website. Possibly, in the future, it may be possible, but at present I don't have permission to do so. --GalwaySue 19:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My qualification is that my grandmother WAS the English woman he met in Galway. And she kept meticulous diaries of her holidays in Ireland. You can all take my word for it, he was NOT gay. But I am not prepared to give out any further information than I have given to Sue, who has given as much as she can on this forum. I do not wish to have myself or my family ridiculed on the Pat Kenny show by the likes of Eoghan Harris and Ruth Dudley Edwards and the revisionist crowd who hate Patrick and all he stands for and have sought to destroy his reputation by these lies and innuendos that allow people to say 'we don't know for sure if he was gay or not.' He was NOT. --RoseP 03:05, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I put:-

With the aid of Thomas MacDonagh and Pearse's younger brother Willie, as well as enthusiastic academics who came to teach at his school, it soon proved a successful experiment.

Henry Williams changed it to:-

With the aid of Thomas MacDonagh, Pearse's younger brother Willie and visiting academics, it soon proved a successful experiment

I was not talking about visiting academics. I was talking about people who were employed at the school. And they WERE enthusiastic. Who is Henry Williams and what is his qualification to second guess me about what went on at St. Enda's? --RoseP 05:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I changed it to "With the aid of Thomas MacDonagh, Pearse's younger brother Willie and other (often transient) academics, it soon proved a successful experiment." Which reflects that the school had an employed staff, but there was a substantial turnover, leaving Willie and MacDonagh (who did leave later) his strongest support. Without their dedication the school might not have succeeded for as long as it did. -R. fiend 09:09, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is totally wrong.

Henry Williams changed this, which is accurate,

'including first hand stories from Rosmuc, Galway, where he spent his happiest summers, tell of a love interest that runs counter to suggestions that he was homosexual, which in any case date only from the most recent revisionist biographies which have sought to re-interpret certain aspects of his poetry in a way in which they should not have been interpreted.'

to this, which is wrong, suggesting a SECOND love interest, when obviously Sue was talking about the FIRST. Again, I ask, what is Henry Williams' qualification to change the meaning of what was written?

Some of his poetry has led people to think that he was a homosexual, but this is countered by new evidence, including first hand stories from Rosmuc, Galway, where he spent his happiest summers, which tell of another love interest.

And his poetry has NOT led to people thinking he is homosexual anyway. People with pyschology degrees and dirty minds have deluded themselves into thinking he was homosexual by reading things into the poems that aren't there. they led THEMSELVES to that conclusion for their own ends.

--RoseP 05:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Patrick was a wonderful, gentle, decent man, and people who did not even know him seek to make him into a monster for political ends. On this site, we can put a stop to that. Or we can let the revisionists win. Which is it to be? --RoseP 05:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, with people who run the Pearse Museum contributing, I think we ought to have a page which celebrates a wonderful man, don't you. I think we should stand up against the revisionists. After all, wikipedia doesn't like 'point of view' and wants facts only. And revisionism is mostly 'point of view' interpreting things to suit a political view. --GalwaySue 01:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I wrote the piece about Pearse's personal life based on my own research. I found no evidence to support any suggestion that he was homosexual and a LOT suggesting he had a normal relationship with a woman between 1910-1915. For somebody to edit that paragraph and alter my words to look as if I support the speculation about homosexuality is insulting to me and to Pearse. And after all we have said here on the discussion board I would like to know why R. Fiend, who has already said he has no special experience or qualification in tis area feels the need to continue the slur. I was told when my words were changed before that "POV" was not allowed. Speculation that Pearse is gay is no more than "POV". Why is it allowed?--GalwaySue 02:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You know very well, that this site is copied by other sites because people believe what is written here. You have helped to spread the lie.

You readily admit that what you wrote is original research, and Wikipedia has a strict policy against original research, so even by keeping your vague references to this relationship I have been very generous with your particular assertions. Your refusal to even supply a name, much less evidence of this relationship does your cause no good. And even if you could prove 100% that Pearse had a normal heterosexual relationship, that does not alter the fact that others have speculated that he had homosexual tendencies. You readily admit that this is the case, and yet you refuse to even allow mention of it. Let's look at the few sentences you object to so strongly: "Little is known about his private life, but there has been much speculation." This is true. You have admitted that people have speculated about him. "In his writings Pearse idealized young boys..." very true, you can read that in his poetry." ...to an extent that he has been accused of sexual attraction to them." Again, you freely admit this in this talk page. You've even supplied the names of those who have accused him (even though you have not supplied the name of this woman in Galway). "This, and the apparent lack of any romantic involvement with women throughout his life..." I made sure to include "apparent" to allow room for your rebuttal. To anyone who has not done specific research of various diaries in Galway (a full 6 billion people) he apprently had no such relationships "...has led to presumptions that he was homosexual." I even specifically used the word "presumption" (supposing to be true without proof, by one definition). "No real evidence for such accusation exists, beyond speculation taken from his works of fiction,..." I even said no proof exists, I've gone as close to exonerating him as one can go " ...which portray young boys in an innocent and angelic, though not sexual, way." even saying not sexual, when people have argued that there is a sexual element to some of his poems (one need not be a pervert to find something a bit disconcerting about a grown man writing a poem in which he kisses a young boy on the lips and admits it has a fragrance that he has "have not found yet In the kisses of women Or in the honey of their bodies"), is walking treading very close to POV. On top of this you leave a glaring non sequitur in the article by mentioning how "different" he might be viewed if people knew he had this relationship with this woman. Different from what? You very vaguely allude to accusations against him without saying anything. You clearly mean that he might not have been accused of homosexuality, but refuse to even have it mentioned. Anyone who doesn't know the full story will not be able to make sense of the final sentence. You also supplied a link to refute "revisionists" but refuse to say what the "revisionism" is. Please note that the article does not say that he was homosexual. It merely says that people have accused him of being such. This is true. I'm reverting the article. Please do not change it back. I'm trying to have the article read from a neutral point of view, which you are bent on undermining. -R. fiend 04:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why do I not have the right to remove a lie from this public domain? Why does what you say go? I thought this was a shared source of information. I was not aware that it had a heirarchy of people whose opinions are more important. You admit that you are not qualified as an historian. But you take it on yourself to spread the lie. I am well aware that you don't say he IS homosexual. nor do you allow that he might not be. You plant the seed of doubt and you let people make their own conclusions in their own dirty minds. You are contributing to the destruction of the reputation of a good man, and by doing so, to the ideals of the Irish Reublic. And you do it, not even for political motives, but just so that you can pretend you are clever on the internet.

So you admit that the article is factual as I had it, yet you keep calling it a lie. I'm having a lot of trouble following your logic. Pretending no one has ever accused him of homosexuality isn't going to make it true. As for the "ideals of the Republic", well that's just silly. A Republican government does not rest on the sexual orientation of a single person who died 89 years ago. If you keep changing the page it may be protected, or you may be blocked from editing. -R. fiend 17:31, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is a lie. And I am not going to be a part of it. You may lock the file if you wish, but not until I remove my websites from it. I withdraw permission for you to use my intellectual property on a website that is perpetuating the lie and clearly isn't interested in hearing the truth. Threatening to ban somebody for telling the truth is the most disgusting thing I have ever heard. --RoseP 23:48, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And if you restore THAT you will be in breach of the terms, since you do not have permission to use my material.

--

Reading this page it seems to me that that the people in this discussion have so much personally invested in the topic of whether or not Pearse was a homosexual that they are _least_ qualified to deal with the topic. If you think that homosexuality is inherently evil, then of course you are going to argue Pearse wasn't, and vice versa. The fact of the matter is it is quite possible to consider that Pearse was homosexual and not see this as either praise or condemnation. The person who wrote "I think we ought to have a page which celebrates a wonderful man, don't you" seems to miss the point of Wikipedia entirely. It is meant to be an objective encyclopedia, not a hagiography. The current "Personal Life" section on the page seems quite objective to me. To _not_ mention the speculation about Pearse's sexuality would be in itself a bias. I hope this immature discussion can be put to an end.

P. --Paulmoloney 7 July 2005 09:20 (UTC)

-- I honestly do not know how you can even speculate on paedophiliac tentancies based on poetry. This is nothing less that slanderous. Whatever about some reporters commenting on homosexual tendancies, which was quite common british discrediting tactic (I can- and will-when I'm less tired- provide many references). These kinds of speculations should be left to courts.. particulary on such sensitive and emotive characters of Irish history. Bill -- User:wmcnamara 18th April I find this entire discussion to be vy. homophobic. If the man was gay, so what? - Anon. -- I've no problem with gays..etc.. but this is an online encyclopedia. If he was gay, great, fair play to him. but in all likelyhood he wasns't. I've just a problem that from his poetry that some seem to think he was a paedophile. That's just ludicrous and completly speculative.

Bill -- User:wmcnamara 18th April

April 25th

I have been correcting mistakes in the Personal Life section and the moderator continues to overwrite them to push his political agenda. He includes some nonsense on Lincoln, which is totally irrelevant; he defames the Christian Brothers as being fanatically anti British which is nonsense. He includes Ruth Dudley Edwards who is an acknoweldged revisionist historian and is a writer for the Sunday Independent which is rabidly anti Pearse. A "comedy" piece on Pearse in the Sunday Independent is included as a reference, which it is not. It finsishes up with a slur that a majority of historians "do not dsismiss the gay slur". The moderator is a disgrace and is a major impediment to contriburs of any persuasion adding information here. As long as he ocntinues with this agenda, the Pearse entry will not go forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taigs (talk • contribs)

You're correct about the "anti-British" thing, I accidentally reverted that back in (and it wasn't Jtdirl or myself who added it in the first place). Couple of things though:

• Please don't add self-refererences to other Wikipedia editors into articles. Wikipedia:Avoid self-references.
• Who acknowledges Dudley-Edwards as "revisionist"? And why should it matter that she writes for the Indo? Maybe it would be better to call her a "unionist" historian instead?
• The references provided show that these rumours do exist, and should be dealt with even-handedly. Note that the version you are opposed to includes the sentence "No evidence has been produced that Pearse engaged in any homosexual sexual acts."
• Please read WP:CIVIL and don't refer to other editors as "a disgrace".

Demiurge 11:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Also please note the 3 revert rule, which forbids you (as well as myself and other editors) from reverting a page more than 3 times in any 24 hour period. Demiurge 11:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If you are speaking to me: - 1. There is no evidence Pearse was a homosexual. He was, most likely a romantic nationalist, cut from the same cloth as the Germans and British poets who got slaughtered in the Great War. His talk of the red wine of Europe was the curency of the day and Connolly pulled him in on that. - 2. The anti British CB thing is only one of many slights you have. Witness how you twist Tone and Emmet, both of whom would have been known to all Irish nationalists of Pearse's generation. They too were romantics and in that Pearse was of the same cloth as them. - 3. Roy Foster and any revisionist historian would acknowedge her as one of their own and that would not be in any doubt whatsoever. She writes for the Sindo, not the Indo and that is a germane fact as any reader of the revisionist Sindo would know. She is not a Unionist. Revisionists go back to the time of Connolly (and Pearse). - 4. You give a Sindo reference in your bibliography. But it is a skit piece, making fun of Pearse for being camp, for dressing up in a military uniform and parading around. This could be leveled at any soldier and is not a serious piece of journalism or scholarship. And nor would it claim to be. I reprint the nonsense below so you can see the disgraceful standards you build your case on. - 5. You provide no definitive references except a quick piece from the Times and a skit piece from the Sindo. You seem to be making the rumours for a political purpose. - 6. What has Lincoln to do with Pearse or Ireland in 1916? Is it so you can add a link to Lincoln? What is your agenda with using Lincoln? Will you use Nelson Mandela next? Or Geroge Washington? Why do you need to mention an obscure point about Lincolon to build your case about an Irihman who was not born til long afterwards? - 7. You mention the majority of historians not dismissing the charges Pearse was gay. Can you cite where they even considered them. Leaving that sentence in there discredits you, unless you can tell us who your anonymous historians are. - 8. You are spreading rumours of the "Do you still hit your wife ?" type. In that you are a disgrace. A fuller appreciation of the 1916 leaders is emerging and they are being demythologized and that is a good thing. However smearing them for political purposes does not help. Although your article is pockmarked with deliberate slights, such as the fanatically anti British Christian Brothers one, the personal atacks on Pearse detract from the whole article and in that you do all serious readers a disservice. This is seen in the scant bibliography section where only Edwards would follow the revisionist line. - 9. I suggest you desist from your smears until you can substantiate them or at least provide credible references. 10. I note your "no 3 rewrites" in a day. However, why do you feel the great need to push these smears you cannot document?

Your references: Here is the Sindo article, reproduced in full [1] (article text removed).Now, this "funny" piece is given as a source by our moderator. What is the agenda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taigs (talk • contribs)

• I didn't write this article, or the section on Pearse's personal life, or the allegations about his sexuality, or the reference to Lincoln, and I didn't write the Wolfe Tone Or Emmet articles either. So I'm not sure what your point is. Once again, I remind you to read WP:CIVIL. Personal attacks such as calling other editors "a disgrace" are not acceptable and if you continue to abuse other editors you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Demiurge 11:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• You are threatening to block me. Why? Because I corrected some but not all mistakes and biases in the Pearse article, much of which, the undocumented personal smears in particular, is a politically motivated smear. An undocumented reference to America's President Lincoln has nothing to do with Pearse's sexuality; can you accept that and, if so, why is it included? I am not referring to articles on Wolfe Tone and Emmet but on references to them in this article on Pearse. I could also refer to the prominence given to Conor Cruise O'Brien, another revisionist historian of sorts. (His degree is Old Irish, if I properly recall). You main point is that I have abused other editors/contributers yet, according to the Pearse piece, yet it seems ok to denigrate Pearse with unsubstantiated and undocumented allegations. Did you read the Sunday Independent article before you deleted it? If you did read it, do you think it belongs in a bibliography section? Do you think the personal section of the Pearse article is an accurate reflection of the truth? Who of Pearse's contemporaties spread the rumours he was gay? Have you references for it? If not, wil you remove the smear? User: Taigs

• I'm not threatening to block you (I'm not an administrator, so I do not have the power to block you). But if you continue to abuse other editors, you are liable to be blocked by someone else who is an administrator. The reference to Lincoln is an interesting historical parallel; what exactly is your objection to it? I hardly think comparing Pearse to Abraham Lincoln of all people can be seen as a "smear". Demiurge 12:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Pearse and Homosexual Panic: This seems to be a very weak West Coast USA term paper by Joseph Nugent, with many irrelevant references in the bibliography. He quotes Freud (discredited), Foucault (what insights has he into Ireland's insurrectionary past) and the redoubtable Ruth Dudley Edwards. Nugent was simply trying to waffle his way through a term paper; he paper is not not authoritative. So here we have an entry with several dubious references and much undocumented speculation.User: Taigs In my opinion, "you" are trying to bait me, just as others were baited in the past. Again, in my opinion, the use of the blocking "nuke" threat is to cover up the fact that these are unsubsatantiated smears on Pearse done with the intention of undermining the validity of his beliefs. "You" are not comparing Pearse to Lincoln, who should not be in this piece at all. Rather, you are using some obscure and undocumented snippet about Lincoln to undermine Pearse in a cowardly and dishonest way. Previous contributers have noted how their contributions have been warped to serve this dishonest agenda. An excelent critical piece could be written on Pearse but snide and hceap insinuations are not the way to go. Now, must I continue to return the errors in the piece once more and wait for you to revert it? Please answer the questions I ask or leave the corrections to the undocumented slurs stand. User: Taigs

• Didn't you read my previous posts? I didn't write the bit about Lincoln. It seems you didn't read WP:CIVIL as I asked you to; your hostile talk page posts accusing other editors of "cowardice and dishonesty" are unacceptable. Continue in this manner and you will be blocked. Demiurge 13:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• You are obviously not reading my comments but are continuing to allow the reversion of the post to contain undocumented, slanted and biased points of view. Why allow the irrelevant and undocumented piece about Lincoln to stand? What is the agenda? Will you accept that the Sindo reference, which I posted here in full, is worthless and that it is a poorly written attempt at humour? Are you attacking me simply because I, following the footsteps of others who have posted here, have shown how weak and slanted the piece is? Do you accept that Ruth Dudley Edwards is a revisionist? Do you agree with her other unducumented assertions such as that in the Sindo's 2 April 2006 that Maire MacSwiney was criminally insane? In the same article, she sees fit to ridicule her paternal grandmother's speech defect (Bridget Dudley Edwards, who she ridicules along with Maud Gonne McBride and other contemporaries of Pearse. And yet she is the main historian used here to defame Pearse. Can you not admit that the article as it stands is very weak, biased and slanted? Do you accept your sources are almost worthless and that the piece is deliberately biased, that it is a disgrace in other words? Taigs

Here is the Sunday Times piece in full: Senator Martin Mansergh delights in defending the indefensible, from Charles Haughey to the republican movement. So when RTE needed somebody to say a good word about Padraig Pearse for a radio programme on Tuesday, who better than the Fianna Fail historian.

Despite the overwhelming evidence that Pearse was a homosexual, Mansergh reckons there is no proof about the nature of the Easter Rising leader’s sexuality. “It’s speculative,” he says. “There is no suggestion that he was actively a paedophile.” Rather contradictorily, Mansergh adds: “He might have idealised boys, but so what?” In other words, the reference is only Denham asserting there is "overwhleming evidence". So the smear as it currently stands has no feet at all. And the people spreading the smear cannot get one reasonable reference but must instead depend on references that would not be accepted in a first year universaity essay. So waht is the agenda in allowing these undocumented smears to fester? Taigs

• I have amended the piece to read as follows: ==Personal life==

Although little is known about his private life, his political opponenets have posited htat he may have had homosexual tendenceies. They have pointed to some of his poetry, and his apparent lack of any romantic involvement with women throughout his life in evidence. The Sue Denham column in The Sunday Times (UK) whuch claimed, without supporting evidence, evidence for this was "overwhelming" (see[2]), typifies these unsubstantiated charges. So too do the comments of Irish historian Ruth Dudley-Edwards, who wrote a biography of Pearse; she concluded that he was "almost certainly a latent homosexual".

No evidence has been produced that Pearse engaged in any homosexual or heteresexual acts. Pearse seems to have been ever romatically attached to one young woman, who died in a drowning accident.

This allows others to add evidence either way regarding Pearse's sexual orientation. It also allows a piece to be written on Edwards and it removes Lincoln who has nothing to do with the matter. Now let's see how long this lasts. Taigs

You obviously have a chronic ability to understand NPOV. Try learning it. (While you are doing it, try learning how to write history and how to spell also.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Fear Eireann: This is a personalized attack on me. Check my IP address and then figure out what kind of keyboard I am using so that you may understand problems of spelling (I am using a kanji board). I am not sure if your name is gramatically correct. You have warned me I will be blocked because I am inserting a point of view. I am not inserting a point of view. You, or whoever is reverting the piece, is. Please produce some evidence to support the contention that Pearse was homosexual and that rumours to that effect were spread in his lifetime. All that has been referenced so far is a. Ruth Dudley Edwards, not an impartial source; 2. Ms Denham who uses one throwaway phrase and has no supporting references; 3. a "funny" article in the Sunday Independent, a paper whose columnists (Ms Edwards (who is one of the better ones), follow a definite agenda; 4. some irrelevant, undocumented hogwash about Lincoln; 5. strained English to say that "because most historians do not address the issue of Pearse's sexuality, they implicitly agree he was a homosexual; 6. a poorly sourced undergrad paper at Berkeley.

So, what is the agenda? Please argue the facts, which are more important than transient spelling mistakes, which are more easily amended than deliberately skewed smears. These smears stop a fuller examination of Pearse emerging. The piece, as it now stands, is on a par with the piece cited from Sunday Independent; it is worthless at best. Taigs

POV drivel

Just look at the drivel you wrote:

Although little is known about his private life, his political opponenets (It isn't his political "opponenets" (sic) it is his biographers) have posited htat he may have had homosexual tendenceies. They have pointed to some of his poetry, and his apparent lack of any romantic involvement with women (NPOV breach: it is actually lack of any known heterosexual relationships, a point openly made by his own family) throughout his life in evidence. The Sue Denham column in The Sunday Times (UK) (Factually wrong. Sue Denham is only published in the Irish edition and is written by Irish writers) whuch claimed, without supporting evidence (a breach of NPOV language. It was referring to other published sources), evidence for this was "overwhelming" (see[3]), typifies ((breach of NPOV language) these unsubstantiated charges (another breach of NPOV language). So too do the comments of Irish historian Ruth Dudley-Edwards (yet another NPOV breach), who wrote a biography of Pearse; she concluded that he was "almost certainly a latent homosexual".

No evidence has been produced that Pearse engaged in any homosexual or heteresexual acts. (All sides say that. The Pope has not apparently had sex. That doesn't mean he isn't heterosexual or homosexual, merely that he hasn't had sex) Pearse seems to have been ever romatically attached to one young woman, who died in a drowning accident.(No he doesn't. That story is widely discredited as being a lavender story concocted in around 1916 or 1917 when questions began to be asked about his orientation. On the evidence it appears simply a cover story akin Lincoln's supposed love for Anna Hathaway. There is no single shred of evidence that there ever was a romantic relationship between Pearse and the woman.)

Apart from chronic illiteracy, what you wrote breaks just about every rule in the book. It is littered with POV language, shows chronic lack of understanding of the rules of historiography, and is nothing but a substandard bit of propaganda. Wikipedia never publishes such stuff. It invariably gets binned as garbage. As numerous users have told you, try learing the rules of NPOV. On the evidence you clearly haven't a clue what they mean. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

....... From Taigs April 26, 2004, East Asia. Sources Used on Pearse

• Tim Pat Coogan, Michael Collins, Hutchinson, 1990: Popular writer from nationalist tradition. Does not claim Pearse was a homosexual and would not without overwhelming proof.

• Ruth Dudley-Edwards, Patrick Pearse: the Triumph of Failure London: Gollancz, 1977. Revisionist historian, popular detective writer and Sunday Independent columnist. She produces no evidence that Pearse was homosexual, something a historian should do.

• F.S.L. Lyons, Ireland Since the Famine, Collins/Fontana, 1973. Pre eminent Irish historian who died before debates like this became popular.

• Dorothy Macardle, The Irish Republic, Corgi, 1968. There is a good entry on this lady in Wikipedia. Her Tragedies of Kerry is required reading for Irish republicans. There is no way she would have endorsed the smear Pearse was gay.

• Arthur Mitchell & Padraig Ó Snodaigh, Irish Political Documents 1916-1949, Irish Academic Press 1985. O Snodaigh’s son is a Sinn Fein TD; he is an Irish language activist (as Pearse was) and Mitchell is pro nationalist and pro militant Labour. Neither of these would have endorsed the smear.

• Mary Pearse, The Home Life of Padraig Pearse. Cork, Mercies 1971. The Pearse family were ardent supporters of Fianna Fail and would not have endorsed the smear. This should read Mercier Press, not Mercies

External links

• "Patrick Pearse and Homosexual Panic" (academic paper) by Joseph Nugent : A weak under grad term level paper, written in a far away country and examined by those unfamiliar with Pearse. The references cited in this paper are general and are not primary or of a standard expected in a definitive account of Pearse and his sexuality.

• "God Save the Queen: Without him there would have been no Easter Rising" - Sunday Independent 15 April 2001. I previously posted this entire article here. It is a generic skit and should not be taken seriously. It could apply equally well to anyone donning a soldier’s uniform. This piece adds nothing to an understanding of Pearse and his times.

Fear Eireann’s comments:

• Lincoln: According to the White House He married Mary Todd, and they had four boys, only one of whom lived to maturity. In 1858 Lincoln ran against Stephen A. Douglas for Senator. He lost the election, but in debating with Douglas he gained a national reputation that won him the Republican nomination for President in 1860.

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/al16.html. There is no mention here of Anne Hathaway. Are you confusing the American Lincoln with the Englishman Shakespeare. Regarding the latter, there has been speculation about his sexuality and about his relationship through his wife with Catholicism but that has nothing to do with Pearse. Please cite your sources or the sources that made it important to smear Pearse with the Lincoln/Hathaway diversion.

• Pope Benedict: There have been “jokes” aplenty about the (lack of) celibacy of the Pope and making him out as a Nazi, for example, does truth a disservice. Why are you dragging the Pope and Lincoln into a piece on Pearse?

Pearse’s biographers: Which ones made the allegations? Until you can cite them and their evidence, you should not use them.

• Sue Denham: unless you can mention the published sources, you should not rely on this reference, which is tangential at the very best.

Ruth Dudley Edwards: She would regard herself as a revisionist historian, in that she has been involved in dismantling the myths of Pearse and people like him. I do not insert any point of view here. Edwards would not share the interpretation of history with the others referenced in the piece.

• Overwhelming: Where is the evidence? Where are the sources? If you cannot substantiate them you are the one inserting the point of view.

• Pearse’s drowned lover: Who raised questions “in around 1916 or 1917” that Pearse was gay? Can you be more precise with the date and can you give us references? How does this fit into the poem Pearse wrote to her? Besides the fact that you are so imprecise and loose with dates, by 1917, the divisions on Pearse would already have been made and Fianna Fail/Dev did well by getting the Pearse family, among others, to their side. So, as well as being too loose with dates, your interpretation does not make political sense.

• Pearse had probably no sexual relations with the woman. But being a virgin in Ireland or England for that matter would not have been uncommon in 1916. So, why speculate? Pearse was caught up in the romantic nationalist wave of his day, just like many other Irishmmen and women, Britons and Germans were. In the case of nationalist Ireland, this is best exemplified by the motley crew the Irish Citizen Army attracted to its ranks.

• Personal attack on me: Fear Eireann: Please refrain from making personal attacks on me to divert from the main discussion. Please check my IP address. I am using a kanjii computer and the English spell check is worse than useless. However, let's get the facts right first and then write up the piece. Please supply references to support your attacks on Pearse. Please explain the inclusion of Lincoln and now Anne Hathaway.

Please comment on the validity of the references cited. You cannot do it because none exist. You are the one with the point of view. To give you a real comparison: consider the British war poets of the Great War. The earlier poems were full of bombast and patriotism but those poets who survived the war took a different tack. Pearse might well have been the same. He was the figurehead for the 1916 Rebellion, no more. The military brains lay elsewhere. We can learn a lot form 1916 but not if unsubstantiated smears and points of view are given credence.

Please admit that you are wrong and accept the corrections

I have gone over this several times to correct typos but I porbably did not get them all. Please answer the questions and refrain, except where necessary, from personally attacking me or my (lack of) typing skills. Further, as you have attacked my "subjective" approach, please back up your own/those of the piece - with objective sources and refrain from too much unsourced speculation. The perosnal section as it now reads is neither good nor helpful to any serious student/reader.Taigs

You pretty much let the cat out of POV bag with your comment "There is no way she would have endorsed the smear Pearse was gay." Why is it a smear?

As to sources: FSL wrote an overall historical textbook covering an era, not a biography. If you know anything about history you'd know that the former does not cover in depth personal traits but straight facts explaining the hows and whys. Dorothy (whose biography here I wrote) wrote her book in the 1960s, in the era of triumphalist national historiography — as historians know, history in its first phase is usually written from the perspective of a rather one-sided glorification of the victors. In its second phase, it goes into debunking the over-the-top glorification, usually in the other extreme (and is called 'revisionism', that is, revising the triumphalist version). Usually it takes a third phase to get a balance between both and weed out the agendas of both. Dorothy's book of course doesn't cover Pearse's sexual orientation, firstly because of the phase of history it was written about and in, and secondly because at that stage people still saw homosexuality as a "smear". Thankfully, most of us have grown up since then. As to Tim Pat, he didn't write a biography of Padraig. Padraig was simply a bit player in the overall story, whom he, understandably, didn't dwell on to the extent of talking about his private life.

As to your attacks on Ruth Dudley-Edwards, she is a highly regarded historian. She, as with most historians of her age, reflects the revisionist perspective of debunking the myths that often were popular in the first phase of historical writing. She clearly concludes that Pearse was a latent homosexual, a viewpoint universally accepted both by revisionist and post-revisionist historians. Tim Pat has himself said that that the conclusion that Pearse was gay is a "no brainer".

The Pearse family have themselves said that always presumed that Padraig (and Willie) were "not the marrying kind", a hiberno-english express for gay. But again books written in the first phase of Irish nationalist historiography of course wouldn't touch the topic, just as they avoided such topics as de Valera's breakdown at Boland's Mills, the fact that the Dublin mob directly after the Rising would have lynched the Rising leaders if they got their hands on them (they emptied chamber pots down on the leaders' heads when they were being led away) — British military authorities actually contemplated letting some of the Rising's leaders loose in Dublin, but decided that letting the mob loose on them would have constituted "unlawful punishment" for which they would then be liable to manslaughter charges — and the main newspapers called for the execution of what they viewed as criminals. Until the 1970s Nationalist publications still pushed the myth that Casement was not gay, even though survivors who knew him said bluntly that they knew back in his lifetime that he was. Pre-revisionist histories didn't mention other aspects about the various leaders, from Eoin O'Duffy's drunkeness and his assault for propositioning a man to Pearse's distinctive squint. (To hide it, Pearse usually opted to be photographed in profile.)

Documented rumours about Pearse's sexuality first appeared nine days after his arrest, in state papers recording the gossip around Dublin. Old recordings of people involved in the War of Independence were shown during the Rising commemoration by various stations in which leaders said they had heard stories about "the brothers" and their "strange" poetry all about men and in Padraig's case, boys.

The claim about a mythical Pearse love affair with a drowned woman first surfaced when rumours of Pearse's sexuality did. It has all the classic signs of cover-up. To explain his notorious lack of interest in women, and his homoerotic poetry, a mythical love affair was made up, in which both subjects were conveniently dead so they couldn't deny it. As to Lincoln, you patently know nothing about him. If you did you'd know that Lincoln has been the subject of gay rumours for over a century, specifically whether his relationships with Speed and Herndon, whom he shared beds with, and also with a young soldier in the White House, were heterosexual or homosexual. His relationship with his wife was notoriously bad — she suffered mental illness and was notoriously difficult to live with. After his death, rumours about him spread. To counteract this, friends contocted a mythical woman who supposedly had been his true love. Generations of historians have failed to find a single shred of evidence of her existence and have long concluded that she was a figment of Lincoln's friends' imaginations, created to try to kill of rumours as to his sexuality, rumours that were documented in New York as early as 1871. Lincoln, as any professional historian knows, is directly relevant here because both he and Pearse had mythical love affairs concocted to counteract rumours about their sexuality. The concoction is not in any way proof of the truth of the rumours, just of their existence. The curious information in the concoction is evidence of the nature of the rumours. If the rumours are heterosexual one doesn't need to create fictional heterosexual love interests: they will already be there. If the rumours are homosexual, however, to counteract them a heterosexual love interest has to be conjured up, to "disprove" them. Similarly when in the 1960s rumours began to spread about Pope Paul supposedly being gay, associates of Paul began claiming that he had once been in love with a woman, ipso facto, he could not be gay. (Paul ended up denying the "scandalous rumours", the first pope in modern times to comment in any way on their sexuality and sex-life or lack thereof.)

As to that Sunday Independent article, it is directly relevant in showing the perspective held by various people on Pearse in 2006. It may well have been humourous in tone, but it wouldn't have taken that tone and said what it said if many people didn't share its attitude. So it is an important link to provide contemporary context.

Mitchell and Ó Snodaigh's book is a compendium of formal texts and documents. It is not a biography and so does not cover the sex lives of any of those associated with the Rising or its aftermath, unless those sex lives featured in official documents, memoranda, constitutions, or such documents. The fact that they don't mention Pearse's orientation is irrelevant. They don't mention his hair colour either. Does that mean then that he was bald?

If, as is the case, biographers speculate on Pearse's orientation, then Wikipedia has to mention it. Whether that bothers you is irrelevant. The fact that you think being gay is a smear is a reflection on you, not on Pearse. Being gay does not increase or decrease Pearse's status, any more that in increases or decreases Diana Princess of Wales's status to know that she had a big nose and had an operation to reduce its size, or that Pope John Paul II had one shoulder higher than the other, or that Franklin D. Roosevelt was confined to a wheelchair. It is simply a fact about their personal life, and as such is, and must be, covered in biographies.

If you can't cope with the demands of NPOV then you'd better go off and find another website to add your POV to. If you add in POV stuff it will simply be deleted on sight, here as it is everywhere on Wikipedia. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

........... East Asia: 1pm April 26th

Fear Eireann:

1. You are trying to pull rank by your simplified view of what constitutes and historians. On the evidence here, you have no right to claim authority. 2. I am glad we now agree Ruth Dudley Edwards in a revisionist historian. This neither makes her right or wrong but simply sits her on one side of the fence. 3. I am glad you accept my point that FSL Lyons et al did not concern themselves with Pearse’s sexuality or lack thereof. Or indeed of that of the other 1916 leaders. Lyons, who was a good historian, is mentioned in the bibliography, which gives undeserved credence to the rest. 4. As regards Pearse’s mothers, you are, in my opinion, trying to shift the goalposts. She had two sons executed in 1916 and she, as a pivotal member of Fianna Fail, accepted the Fianna Fail line on her sons. In her time, there is no way she would have believed, given the lack of evidence, she was gay. Idle speculation to the contrary is just that: idle and largely useless. If you want to play the gay card, I believe you are the culprit, not me. The woman had two kids killed. Can you not accept what that would do to her, or to any mother in a similar position? 5. I am not attacking Ruth Dudley Edwards, I am merely saying what she does. She is not a disinterested source just as Sinn Fein sources are not disinterested. Now that you accept my point she is a revisionist historian, can you not accept that anything she says needs further citations, just as anything Sinn Fein would utter would need further verification? Or should we just accept your word that she has the final word? 6. Please give the references that most historians accept Pearse was gay and Coogan, a populist writer from the nationalist side, says Pearse being gay is a “no brainer”. I would have imagined such a quote would have got wide publicity. Please supply your sources and the ones he uses. 7. You insinuate the Pearse family believed both Pearses were gay. Please supply your sources. 8. If the Pearse family wrote, as we agree, in the triumphalist phase, why would they say one or both brothers were gay? This seems to defy my sense of logic but not yours. Please elaborate, especially as they “always” said they were gay. If that is the case, there should be ample secondary sources. 9. The reaction of the people of Dublin to the Rising has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of some of its leaders. 10. Casement was gay and McBride was a philanderer. They were ordinary people Perhaps Connolly, who had severe personality defects, Clarke and Mallin should have concentrated on protecting their families, instead of embarking on this romantic militaristic adventure but what has that to do with Pearse’s sexual orientation? 11. Oh! So the documented rumours began in 1916, not “1916 or 1917”. Now, that is progress. Now please give the references. 12. Lincoln has nothing to do with Pearse or with the 1916 Rebellion. He should not be in this article. And nor should Anne Hathaway. I cited a US White House source and I could find no reference to an Anne Hathaway. Abraham Lincoln, like America’s founding fathers, had shortcomings. But they have nothing to do with Pearse. More so if you cannot cite them. Lincoln was the leader of a nation engaged in major wars; Pearse was a relatively obscure Irish romantic revolutionary. They have nothing in common and one should not be used when discussing the other because a professional historian, to use your metric, would not do this in a short piece. 13. “Lincoln, as any professional historian knows, is directly relevant here”. Why mention professional historians? Pulling rank again? And what professional historians would be researching both Lincoln and Pearse? And how is an American President killed in the 1860s directly relevant to an Irish revolutionary killed in 1916? 14. Pope Paul V1: Another irrelevant g. Are you anti Papist? 15. What biographers have speculated? If so, simply state they have speculated. And produce evidence, not red herrings of Popes and American presidents. 16. You are the one adding the POV. If you cannot produce evidence, you should leave your prejudices out of it. If Lincoln was bisexual, as, apparently, John Lennon was, then put that in an entry on Abraham Lincoln. If JFK slept around, put that in an entry on JFK, not John McBride or PH Pearse. 17. Will you admit you were wrong about Lincoln having an affair with Shakepeare’s widow? 18. If you cannot produce any evidence, then rewrite the piece to reflect your lack of knowledge. So far, you have produced no evidence. 19. The Dorothy McArdle piece is interesting and informative, something that cannot be said for the entry under discussion. 20. I am glad you have stopped your ad hominen attacks on me. If you cannot substantiate your charges against Pearse, you should remove them. 21. Maybe it is you, not me, who should get your own playpen. The piece, as it now stands, is not written from a neutral point of view. More sources and less speculation and red herrings please. Taigs

If historians speculate that Pearse was gay, then it goes in here, irrespective of whether you think it a "slur" or not. You have offered no credible answer to any of the points made by any of your critics here or on your talk page. All you have offered is red herrings (asking why a book made up entirely of primary documents doesn't cover someone's sexuality), paranoia (thinking a historical reference to Pope Paul is somehow "anti-papist" which as usual you spell wrong), homophobia (that saying someone was gay is a "slur"). But then the fact that you use a username that is widely seen as offensive (the equivalent of a user calling themselves nigger or faggot) speaks volumes. Try learning NPOV for a change. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 12:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Fear Eireannach:

Here is your latest reply with comment, sentence by sentence. That is followed by the current entry with comments, sentence by sentence. In between these sections are some comments about you, your sexuality and your related agenda. I have to go over it and fix the typos, though I am sure some iwl lremain for you to gloat over.

• If historians speculate that Pearse was gay, then it goes in here, irrespective of whether you think it a "slur" or not. It is here because you are gay and you are pushing some agenda. Where are the historians? Please cite them. • You have offered no credible answer to any of the points made by any of your critics here or on your talk page. I have responded to a slanted post on Pearse’s life by pointing out that the sources used are not credible. You are the one making allegations and you cannot bring forth any supporting evidence. Was Joseph Mary Plunkett gay as your Sunday Independent “source” alleges? • All you have offered is red herrings (asking why a book made up entirely of primary documents doesn't cover someone's sexuality), paranoia (thinking a historical reference to Pope Paul is somehow "anti-papist" which as usual you spell wrong), homophobia (that saying someone was gay is a "slur"). You can produce no evidence he was gay and the way the bibliography is slanted indicates that Mitchell and O Snodaigh support your biased interpretation. Your only references to Pearse’s alleged gayness are tangential ones by people pushing an agenda. You do not serve the truth. You bring Popes and dead American Presidents in to it as your piece has no substance. Your agenda apart, you add little by way of objectivity and the fact you cannot see how weak the entry is speaks volumes. • But then the fact that you use a username that is widely seen as offensive (the equivalent of a user calling themselves nigger or faggot) speaks volumes. My username is a redherring and is irrelevant to the issue. I don’t think yours is grammatically correct btw and as you are so pedantic and so much against American English etc, you should use wrongly instead of wrong. But these distract from the main point that the Pearse entry is weak, particularly so in this section which serves your particular homosexual agenda. • Try learning NPOV for a change. You are the one dishonestly (imho) pushing an agenda and a point of view. Your page stresses your homosexuality and, for whatever reason, you feel the need to claim Pearse as one of your own. Again, posts like this giving politically or sexually inspired opinion instead of solid evidence only serve to discredit Wikipedia. But you can't or won't see that.

Pearse personal life entry: Line by line

• Little is known about his private life, but there has been much speculation. The speculation is not documented and those speculating here cannot supply definite dates or sources.

• Some of his poetry, and his apparent lack of any romantic involvement with women throughout his life, has led to presumptions that he was homosexual, a rumour that existed within his own lifetime, where his bachelor status, and lack of relationships with women, was noted. Long sentence: Who noted this during his lifetime and where are the references? Fear Eireann now tells us British Intelligence speculated on his sexuality after they shot him. They were hardly a neutral source and, in this instance, they supplied no evidence to support their slur.

• Indeed, the Sue Denham column in The Sunday Times (UK) said that the evidence for this was "overwhelming" (see[1]). There is one unsubstantiated, throwaway line in this piece. As the entire tone of the Denham piece is anti nationalist, the unsubstantiated allegation has to be seen in that light. As this is a relatively recent piece of yellow journalism, it is out of place in a paragraph dealing with pre 1916 events.

• The question of whether Pearse was a homosexual remains controversial. The same applies to many historical figures who have unsubstantiated charges leveled at them. This sentence is superfluous if truth and accuracy count.

*No evidence has been produced that Pearse engaged in any homosexual sexual acts. Yet the slur gets big billing on Wikipedia. As this sentence is akin to saying “No evidence has been produced that George W Bush was sodomized by pigs”, it should not stand. Perhaps Fear E can also fix up the grammar in it. 

• Curiously, as with Abraham Lincoln, who also faced contemporary rumours as to his sexual orientation, a ficticious story was constructed claiming that Pearse had had a love affair with a young woman, eventually leading to an engagement. Lincoln was married, he was not Irish and he has nothing to do with 1916. So he should not be here. There seems to be a typo in the entry here. Maybe Fear Eireann can fix it. Why the word “curiously”? To try to join the most disjointed of dots? Glad Anne Hathaway has exited stage right btw.

• In the case of Pearse it was claimed that his heart was broken when this young woman drowned, with he as a result avoiding any romantic attachments. This would not be at all unusual for romantics like Pearse. Who made the claim he was heart broken by the way? This is also a badly written sentence.

• Unlike Lincoln's supposed "true love" who never actually existed, the woman named as Pearse's lover did exist. So why bring Lincoln (and Anne Hathaway) into it? What is the agenda with this superfluous piece of information about Lincoln and Shakespeare’s widow?

• However no evidence exists of anything other than a friendship between the two. So, Pearse did not sleep around. So why include this sentence?

• Irish historian Ruth Dudley-Edwards, who wrote a biography of Pearse, concluded that he was "almost certainly a latent homosexual". She is a revisionist historian and she is speculating here. How does one conclude “almost certainly”? That is abusing English to propound a POV. Again, this sentence should be amended.

• Not all historians agree with this analysis, though a majority do not dismiss the possibility. Was a valid poll taken of all historians? If not, what was the size of the sample of historians used to infer this conclusion about all historians? How many of them produced primary or secondary evidence to substantiate their claims? If these questions cannot be adequately answered, this sentence is again abusing English to propound a NPOV.

• Conclusion: This piece does not stand up to any serious scrutiny and should be removed or seriously amended. If the moderators/administrators were involved in writing this piece, they should do some serious self reflection regarding their competencies. It is shoddy pieces like this that give Wikipedia a bad name. Again, this is my humble opinion and I will no doubt get more abuse by not following the gay bear line on thisTaigs

Neutral Point of View (with pertinent example)

Wikipedia’s NPOV, inter alia, states the following

• Sensationalism, which is bias in favor of the exceptional over the ordinary. This includes the practice whereby exceptional news may be overemphasized, distorted or fabricated to boost commercial ratings. Such as using the media references cited. See my reference below. • A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics. The gay POV is not significant unless it can be documented. • NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. The gay POV prevails in the section currently under dispute. • Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. This is not the case here, where the gay view prevails. • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; This cannot be done here by the gay faction. • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. What does Fear E make of this point? • We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts, and values or opinions. By "fact," we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." The gay faction have no facts to go on. • Disagreements over whether something is approached the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) way can usually be avoided through the practice of good research. And I contend the Pearse Personal section is badly researched.

Now, Fear Eireannach: Given your stance, please answer the following for exemplification purposes: http://www.cultnews.com/This site, which is an excellent source on religious cults, currently claims Tom Cruise is a closet gay, much as the disputed piece claims Pearse et al were gay. Now, this site is very down on the Mormons and the Scientologists in particular. Given that fact, if someone were to write an entry on Tom Cruise and forgetting editing warts, would this site be a credible source to infer Cruise was gay? In my opinion, it would not be, though it would be a good critical source on Scientology. See, Cultnews wish to attack Scientology, so they use this article. But that backfires on them. And I feel you do the same thing dragging in dead Presidents and dead Popes.

Extra: http://www.ruthdudleyedwards.co.uk/ Homepage of journalist, historian and crime writer, Ruth Dudley ...Ruth Dudley Edwards website describes her work as a writer of satirical crime fiction, historian and journalist with a special interest in the politics of ...

Fear E: Please check out the home page of Ruth Dudley Edwards., given above Please note: a. how she describes herself; b she makes some typos (Pearce), c. she says Pearse was into young boys, that he was a closet paedophile/pedophile in other words. If you do decide to edit the piece to include this “source”, please at least describe her as how I describe her and as she describes herself. Please also note her ideas are conjectural. Maybe if you email her, she could help you with the English if you are polite. Taigs

Why is it that every time it is mentioned that it is possible Pearse may have been gay, or that it is even mentioned that he has been accused of being so (which no one can deny) it suddenly turns into politics? This is not a political issue. The speculations are widespread, and it would be remiss to pretend they don't exist (as some would like) or to utterly dismiss those who made them. To dismiss anyone who partisans believe are "anti-Pearse" as being POV and untrushworthy, but taking any admittedly pro-Pearse writers for their word is in itself POV. Like it or not, Ruth Dudley-Edwards has written the only widely available general biography of Pearse, and as such she must be taken somewhat seriously. Arguing that she's a "revisionist" so she can't be taken seriously isn't going to work. It would appear that anyone who doesn't think Pearse was about the greatest guy ever is going to be dismissed as a "revisionist".

Nor can we dismiss Dudley-Edwards for being a crime novelist. Patricia Cornwell, a crime novelist, wrote a well-researched, non-fiction work in which she claims Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper. It's well covered in the Sickert article, even though it's basically just the accusations of a novelist. It's been largely dismissed by many experts, but it's still a significant accusation which deserves coverage, as this does. Likewise the comparisons to Tom Cruise don't work. Rumors of homosexuality are well-covered in that article, with no evidence. That being said, the refernce to Lincoln does seem a bit unnecceasry, and I would not object to its removal (though it wouldn't seem to address the greater issue here). And furthermore, if no no can find a reference to indicate that rumors of homosexuality existed in his lifetime, that sentence should probably be removed. -R. fiend 14:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

R Fiend: Thank you for your balanced input.

The manner in which things are written make them political. The 1916 leaders were all simple people, like all of us, with strong and weak points and urges. In 1966, a retired Christian Brother who taught Pearse at The Row remembered him as a quiet, shy retiring type, due perhaps to his ugliness on one side. By all means, mention that he has been “accused” of being a paedophile/pedophile/homosexual but give the sources. Highlight Ruth Dudley Edwards and let those with differing points of view state their case. Fleshing out RDE, as I have done, helps readers form an objective opinion of her views. In this way, though we might not get nearer the truth of Pearse’s sexual orientation, we might get a fuller understanding of just how human the players in the 1916 rebellion were. And that would be a valuable service. I do not argue that she is a "revisionist". I merely point it out. Kevin Myers, for example, has made some excellent points on 1916 and he is very much in the revisionist camp.

Can we agree, as you seem to, that the piece in question needs further editing to serve the greater good? - Taigs 12.20 am, 27 April 2006 (East Asian time)

You still go on with your homophobia. No-one is "accusing" Pearse of being gay, any more than they "accuse" him of having a certain colour hair. They say that on the evidence he probably was. You may regard it as a "slur". Others without your homophobia regard whether a person, is gay, straight or bisexual as simply a fact of life. And yes the Lincoln reference is relevant. Both men faced rumours. Both men had ficticious love affairs constructed subsequently to "prove" their heterosexuality. You still show no understanding whatsoever of the way biographies are written, no underunderstaning whatsoever of NPOV, just a problem with a mention of something widely written about, commented about and discussed. The problem is your POV agenda and your attempt to push your poorly written POV opinions over NPOV language that does not state that he was gay, merely makes the point that he is regarded by his main biographer and others as having been so. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC) ............

• Fear Eireann

You are the one with the agenda, not me. You insist on telling us your sexual preferences (gay bear as if anyone cares about your private life) and here you are pushing your sexual agenda in a very biased and authoritarian fashion Anyone who does not accept your homosexual agenda is homophobic in your book and you cannot see the obvious flaws in that stance. The piece in question is not even about his personal life (the title is even wrong) but is about his supposed sexual orientation, as interpreted by partisan homosexual activists like you. You cannot argue the facts because you are wrong and so you have to attack me. As the only reference produced is the secondary one of Ruth Dudley Edwards who says he was into children not men, so you should say that, if you wish. Simply state that the revisionist historian RDE regards him as being a (latent) paedophile. That would be fine with me. You speak of my “poorly written” POV opinions and yet both the piece and your last post have grammatical and spelling mistakes in them which you cannot or will not fix. You are the one propounding the POV. And your argument is so weak you have to drag in an unsubstantiated rumour about Abe Lincoln, who is as peripheral to Pearse as Tom Cruise is. You scream about your qualifications and you put in a red herring on Abe Lincoln when supposedly discussing PH Pearse. The entire piece is very weak and the fact that you cannot or will not see that speaks volumes about you and your agenda. You attack my English but you seem to have no problems with the strained English in the piece in question. This is because you are pushing an agenda and your attacks on me and on others before me cannot change that. The fact that you cannot see your own partisan POV should debar you from being an administrator. Indeed, if you had the academic training you claim to have, you would step down in this case at least. Taigs

R Fiend: Regarding St Enda's: Con Colbert should probably be mentioned. Besides fitting in with Fear E's (latent) homosexual agenda, the strapping Colbert was also executed in 1916; in other words, four of the 15/16 were St Enda's instructors. It is also important, I feel, to stress Pearse's interest in education, as outlined in The Murder Machine. Although Pearse had obviously some leadeship and organizational abilities to get that school off the ground, I feel he and his closest friends were overly romantic. The military brains of 1916 were not to be found in Pearse, but in McDermott and Connolly, who also had their own illusions shattered in 1916. I feel an exploration of this romantic/heroic streak would be much more valuable and productive than ill informed and redundant speculations on Pearse's (a)sexualityTaigs .....

Sure, go ahead and mention Colbert in the St. Enda's article. That's fine. You don't need me to do it. I'm pretty sure it's already mentioned in the Colbert article. He didn't play a terribly important role in the school, as I recall, but there's no reason not to mention it. As for the points below, I haven't gone back and read the article, so I don't know what you're addressing directly, but we seem to be splitting hairs over what "belatedly" means (if it's even said in the article at all). Certainly he spoke about the likes of Tone and Emmet in 1913, but keep in mind that was during the last few years of his life. If I recall, his older heroes, going back to childhood, were the mythical Gaelic heroes such as Cuchulainn, which repersent a substantially different facet of Irish nationalism.

Now back to the gay stuff for a moment. Saying Dudley-Edwards is solely responsible for gay rumours doesn't work. I recall reading, for instance, that one of his friends (I think it was MacDonagh) advised him against publishing some of his poems due to homoeroticism. And one doesn't need to read too deeply into some of hsi works to find it. Indeed read this and see how much bending over backwards the essayist does to try to make it not seem , for lack of a better word, icky. -R. fiend 01:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Some more non gay queries:

Other parts of the piece said Pearse only belatedly discovered Tone and Emmet and that it was somehow odd that Pearse would spiritually embrace them. Yet Pearse made his famous speech at Bodenstown as early as. 22nd June 1913 and, some months later (2nd March, 1914), he waxed all too lyrically about Emmet in Brooklyn, where he explained how links with Emmet permeated St Enda’s where he established his school in 1908. This would indicate Pearse was well aware of Emmet as early as 1908 and it would be hard to imagine any Irish nationalist not being aware of the 1798 Rebellion and Tone’s role in it. Will Fear Eireann allow this further faux pas to be fixed? Taigs

...........

East Asia: 8.30 am Friday: I quote here Wikipedia's entry for ther sexual orientation of Baden Powell, the founder of the Boy Scouts. This makes a more relevant and pertinent example than that of Lincoln et al. The Pearse Sexual Orientation piece could easily be written to this temp plate, citing Ruth Dudley Edwards. The style is much more appropriate to the mateiral presented. If there is no word back on this, I will rewrite the piece in a few days. On his sexual orientation Main article: Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation Some modern authors have explained Baden-Powell's alleged sexual interest in boys as a manifestation of homosexual sensibilities. Among these historians are Tim Jeal, author of Baden-Powell: Founder of the Boy Scouts, who introduces modern theories of sexuality in his analysis, and Michael Rosenthal of Columbia University, in The character factory: Baden-Powell and the origins of the Boy Scout movement.[3] Other historians have been less sympathetic; Kenneth Morgan of Oxford, in The Boer War and the Media, refers to Baden-Powell's "probable pederasty" as a character defect covered up by the media.[4]

There is however, no evidence of his ever engaging in sexual activity with any males. He was adamant against Scoutmasters engaging in sexual contact with their charges, recommending flogging for transgressors. Baden-Powell believed strongly in the negative effects of masturbation - a view not shared by all educators of his time - and counseled Scouts to restrain the sexual impulse as far as possible. An exhortation against masturbation, written by Baden-Powell for inclusion in an early scouting manual, was so graphic that his printer refused to print it unedited. [[User|Taigs</span

Mother / aunt

This part doesn't quite make sense:

His father, a Catholic convert, was from a Cornish nonconformist family and an artisan/stonemason, who held moderate home rule views and his mother, Margaret, was from an Irish-speaking family in County Meath. The Irish-speaking influence of his aunt Margaret instilled in him an early love for the Irish language.

If he father was a Cornish nonconformist, surely all his Irish-speaking relatives must have been on his mother's side. So his Irish-speaking aunt is presumably a maternal aunt.

Yet the article says his mother's name was "Margaret" and also mentions his aunt's name as "Margaret".

Surely there can't have been two sisters from the same family, both named "Margaret"? I think some account of his mother and aunt have gotten confused here. --Saforrest 06:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The Irish-speaking aunt was a great-aunt, Margaret Pearse's paternal aunt. I have ammended the article to this effect.

I also removed the Cornish reference. The Pearse family were originally from Devonshire but Pearse's father and grandfater were born in London.

Redundant links

These two links are I consider redundant,

• Illustrated biography, and collected writings of Pearse
• Pearse's published poems - Tackling the issues raised by revisionists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Domer48 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC).--Domer48 12:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Article name!?

As gaelige no bearla?--Vintagekits 19:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As your good friend would say..."this is the English Wikipedia", so please speak English. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Gabh mo leithscéal! What should the article name be.--Vintagekits 19:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Pearse, as it's been for a considerable amount of time before the copy and paste move to the redirect. That's the name he used, and that's what he's mostly commonly known as. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a question of whether his name should be in Gaeilge or English. Rather it is a question of whether to spell his name the way he prefered it (ie Pádraig Mac Piarais) or spell it the way history spells it. Therefore, I think we should balance the two, taking both Nationalist and non-Nationalist into account (as what is done with Derry and Londonderry). A balance of Pádraig Mac Piarais + Patrick Pearse= Pádraig Pearse.

Well I dont think he used "Mac Piarais" much - also he signed the proclimation PH Pearse. --Vintagekits 19:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find he used Patrick, not Pádraig. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure he always did to be honest.--Vintagekits 19:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I can recall instances where I've seen his name written and signed in Gaeilge. It's also widely regarded that his OFFICIAL title is Pádraig or sometimes Pádraic Mac Piarais. For instance

It's to do with common names, not names used by Irish nationalists. Patrick Pearse is his common name. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I am not sure that "Pádraig Pearse" is not his common name. I know he was born Patrick but I thought he was -known as Pádraig after he joined the Gaelic revival.--Vintagekits 19:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to take issue with One Night in Hackney's statement "It's to do with common names, not names used by Irish nationalists." Pádraig/Patrick used both titles and was from an Irish speaking background and therefore would have grown up hearing both...this is not just simply Irish Nationalist Revisionist work!!

I think both should be used, he would have been born Patrick because the "British" registrars would not have accepted Pádraig as his name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.154.147 (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Pearse signed himself Pádraig Mac Piarais, P.H. Pearse or Patrick H. Pearse. He never used the form Pádraic Pearse. I think Patrick Pearse is the best name for the article, generally Pearse used the Irish form when writing in Irish and the English form when writing in English.

Early Years

ok im know i am new to this any everything but has anyone notcied that this guy was converted to christianity before he was born and was married at the age of 4?Squazzil 09:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Just had a quick look, is it refering to his father, James?

"Smear Campaign"

I strongly suggest that the sentence which alleges that the speculation over Pearse's sexuality was motivated by a British-inspired smear campaign against Irish republicanism be removed.

Ruth Dudley Edwards wrote her biography of Pearse in 1978. She only began writing journalism on the Northern Ireland Peace Process in 1993. Therefore it is absolutely irrelevant to describe her as "neo-unionist" when quoting her historical research on Pearse. If Provos would actually read the book, they would find that Edwards comes to no concrete conclusions on Pearse's sexuality, naturally because he was so ambiguous about it. It would in fact be more accurate to say he was "asexual".

P.S. Why would speculation that Pearse was a homosexual smear his reputation? Even if he was, so what? Provos can be so sensitive...

I would suggest that you describing anyone who objects to the speculation from RDE as a "Provo" shows your opinion is rightfully disregarded. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What other group of persons would become so touchy when the sexuality of their favorite martyr is called into question? It is a completely redundant discourse. The facts are there: the book was written in 1978, 15 years before RDE even began writing on Northern Ireland issues (to which the sexuality of Pearse is even less relevant). What does her unionist stance have to do with this completely valid speculation?

One night in hackney: where is the basis for this speculation apart from the fact that he distant or uninvolved with relationships with women. Until there is reasonable evidence that he had ANY homosexual tendencies, then it should not be considered even partly valid speculation.

I refer you to my point above. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

One night in hackney: where is the basis for this speculation apart from the fact that he distant or uninvolved with relationships with women. Until there is reasonable evidence that he had ANY homosexual tendencies, then it should not be considered even partly valid speculation.

86.43.71.254 (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC) RDE, the revisionist. Sure what else would she write? She was a revisionist long before 1978, and just brought it with her to journalism? --Domer48 20:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

One night in hackney: where is the basis for this speculation apart from the fact that he distant or uninvolved with relationships with women. Until there is reasonable evidence that he had ANY homosexual tendencies, then it should not be considered even partly valid speculation. 86.43.71.254 (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to remove the last sentence as being utterly unencyclopedic. "Obviously" a smear campaign? Who's to say it's obviously anything? Furthermore the evidence is not solely from pro-British sources; some of it comes from his own poetry in which he describes kissing young boys on the lips and the like. -R. fiend 23:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's just remove the fringe minorty view completely then. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be more inclined to support its inclusion it the source wasnt just from a smear merchant like R D-E - shes about as credible was her mate Sean O'Callaghan.--Vintagekits 12:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"Poetry," is down to interpretation, and representation. Could the boy in the poem, represent Christ? Or possibly… The list is endless. --Domer48 12:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Flags in infobox

Nitpicking here, but why is the Flag of Ireland used in the infobox? It wasn't used in any way when Pearse was born, and wasn't official until after he died. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 14:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you know the answer - WP:FLAGCRUFT. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed them from some of the other Rising articles. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 14:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

recent changes

Osioni recent changes are in the case of "called on all parties to stand united with Redmond in the struggle," the book says he "called on all intrested parties to submerge their differences." I think this is an important point and should not be omitted. On the point "On a public platform at the great Home Rule Rally in Dublin city centre on 31 March 1912, Pearse was one of four speakers," the is no mention of the fact that the meeting was boycotted by Sinn Féin, O'Brienites and Republicans and that the speakers were an "unrepresentative group," according to the author. Basically it has all been copied word for word from the book, I may be wrong but you should not do that? If I am wrong, revert my changes. Thanks --Domer48 22:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

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 Myths from Easter 1916, 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.

In addition, Casement was never a member of the IRB. --Domer48 (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The following edit with reference to Casement was deleted:- ... and had tried to prevent the Rising due to insufficient German support<ref Keith Jeffery in ''1916: The long Revolution'' , The First World War and the Rising p. 93, (2007) ISBN 978-1-85635-545-2</ref>: with your comment " Removed some unreferenced information on Casement see discussion". Firstly, the edit was well referenced, but I ammended Jeffery's wording slightly to avoid copy-right infringement. His text tead: - his mission ironically was to try to prevent the planned rising on the grounds that insufficient German assistance was being provided -. Admittedly he did not know of Pearse's decision to go it alone, but did know that a rising was in the planning for which he was to have provided vital support. I am also aware he wrote from Germany to certain key figures in the IRB discouraging an insurrection until circumstances were more favourable. You side-stepped discussing the deleted edit by quoting him a year later. This makes me wonder about the motives which I do not find ok. If you do not allow it here I'll put it into Casement's page. Osioni (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Provide a diff for me removing referenced information. As to my "motives" I suggest you assume good faith. As to me allowing it here? Casement own words makes Jeffery's opinions worthless, regardless of what page you put it on. Now have a read of talk page guidlines, and comment on the edits and not the editor. --Domer48 (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Denying fair reason for a deletion, disqualifying it as Prof. Jeffery's "opinion" – hardly provides room for deeper discussion. This for the historical record:

In the eighties I had occasion to visit the village of Riederau on the Ammersee (lake) west of Munich where Casement lived for some time. The house where he resided had a plaque to commemorate his stay. He was associated with a prominent family in the area to whom he gave his personal papers before departing for Ireland. The family had offered them to the Irish government, but the offer was declined. I was given the opportunity to peruse through them. Casement had kept detailed records of meetings, conversations and correspondence. I was astonished to read one such draft or transcript of a letter to the leadership of the IRB which clearly advised on postponing any intended rebellion until circumstances were more favourable. Astonished because official history claimed he returned to Ireland to encourage an insurrection. I learnt some years later that a member of the family travelled to Dublin and deposited his papers in a state archive. Osioni (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Osioni, first I’m glad you did not pursue the suggestion I removed referenced information, thanks for that. I’m familiar with the Casements writings. Casement was not a member of the IRB. I pointed this out in the Note, I added to the first reference I added. Now I’m more familiar with authors suggesting that he wished to stop the Rebellion, as opposed to he wished to encourage it. As casement makes quite clear in one of his final statements, he wished to participate in it. Now you can add references which contradict what he himself says, if you wish. The only question I would ask is why? Casement makes his case much better that I, in his speech from the dock, as to his intensions: "The example was given not to Englishmen but to Irishmen, and the “like case” can never arise in England, but only in Ireland. To Englishmen I set no evil example, for I made no appeal to them. I asked no Englishman to help me. I asked Irishmen to fight for their rights. The “evil example” was only to other Irishmen who might come after me, and in “like case” seek to do as I did. How, then, since neither my example nor my appeal was addressed to Englishmen, can I be rightfully tried by them? If I did wrong in making that appeal to Irishmen to join with me in an effort to fight for Ireland, it is by Irishmen, and by them alone, I can be rightfully judged." I apoligise if I gave the impression if you felt I was leaving no room for discussion. Regards --Domer48 (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Pearse in IRB

Pearse was sworn into the IRB in July, 1913? That contradicts several other sources. I think there is too much uncertainty on the matter to state any specific date as being the correct one. Edwards puts forth December, 1913, while Hobson (who would be in a position to know; it is likely him who swore Pearse in) states in to uncertain terms that Pearse was not a member when the Volunteers were formed in November. All sources seem to agree that he was a member by early 1914, so I'm not sure we can state anything more specific than that with 100% certainty. -R. fiend (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If there is an alternative date please include it. The reference is the most up to date book on the subject. "Hobson... states in to uncertain terms that Pearse was not a member when the Volunteers were formed in November." Please include that also. "That contradicts several other sources." Please specify and add to the article. --Domer48 (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I won't be home with my sources until next week. In any case, I'm not sure if the start of that paragraph is the best place to go into an analysis of when Pearse joined the IRB. I'm curious about what Neeson says, and what his sources are. This is the first time I've heard it suggested that Pearse was in the IRB before the Volunteers. It obviously runs counter to the notion that Pearse was co-opted largely because his position within the Volunteers would be highly beneficial to the IRB. What does Neeson say? -R. fiend (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

In a statement to the Bureau of Military History, dated 26 January 1948, Bulmer Hobson, the man who swore Pearse into the IRB, states: "After the formation of the Irish Volunteers in October, 1913, Pádraig Pearse was sworn in by me as a member of the IRB in December of that year ... I swore him in before his departure for the States." (Source National Library of Ireland, 3.2.1 Bulmer Hobson and Denis McCullough, in The 1916 Rising: Personalities and Perspectives, p. 18, accessed 1 January.)

What does Neeson base his information on?--Damac (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you changed your view on Hobson? Never mind, by any chance could you tell me who Edwards was citing, was it Hobson by any chance? If it was, is there any need for her reference? --Domer48 (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on the first post on this tread, Hobson giving two time periods, would it not be as well the replace the referenced information, though leaving it as a note? --Domer48 (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't give two time periods. And Neeson gives no source whatsoever. -R. fiend (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to it, R. fiend.

No, Domer48, I haven't changed my view on Hobson. In the link you provide, I was suggesting that a reference ("Bulmer Hobson, Foundation of Growth of the Irish Volunteers, 1913-1914"), which wasn't being used to support anything in the text, be removed.

What two time periods does Hobson refer to? One reference has Hobson claiming PP was not a member in October 1913, and the other that he swore PP in in December 1913. That's more or less the same thing, and one does not contradict the other. In any case, I provided more sources since the first thread of this post appeared.

Given the weight of evidence to support Hobson's claim, and the complete lack of any for Neeson's, Wikipedia should stick to the facts and not give any credence to any such unreferenced myths from Neeson's Myths.--Damac (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree here, the only reference we have is Hobson's. R D Edwards only cites Hobson. Now Kathleen Clarke, in My Fight for Ireland's Freedom, says that it was "towards the end of 1913," that Tom Clarke got Pearse co-opted on to the Supreme Council of the IRB. Charles Townshend, remarks in his preface to Easter 1916, The Irish Rebellion, that when Hobson was invited to comment on one of Diarmuid Lynch's eassays (The IRB and the 1916 Insurrection), his reply was "embittered" "I have no wish to deter Mr. Lynch from getting his particular distortions published." In addition, in the foot note on the article Hobson says "After the formation of the Irish Volunteers in October, 1913, Pádraig Pearse was sworn in by me..." The Volunteers were not formed till the November. So there is a contradiction there. --Domer48 (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Domer there was a meeting held in October by a group to discuss the formation of an Irish Volunteers, the November meeting at the Rotunda was the first public held meeting to formalise and recruit memnbers, I think that is where the confusion is.--Padraig (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Your right Pádraig, but Hobson clearly states ""After the formation of the Irish Volunteers in October, so he is clearly mistaken. As I have mentioned else were, the IRB discussed forming the Volunteers as early as Janurary 1913. --Domer48 (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC) .

Well, as you pointed out long ago, the IRB was very active before November 1 1913 (Mac Neill's letter) in preparing for the Volunteers.

This article is about PP, not Hobson. I'm removing the material you added about Hobson's bitterness. This is not the place for it. And, as Neeson does not provide a source for this date, that's going too.--Damac (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove referenced material. R D Edwards cites Hobson, and his date is disputed, so that can also be removed? Now the information in the article will have to be changed. I would make the following suggestion "Just before the end of 1913, Pearse had become a member of the secret Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB)..." --Domer48 (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not tell me what to do. You're free to come here and discuss matters, but do not order me around. All my edits on Wikipedia are legitimate, and please turn off the "remove referenced material" broken record.

Hobson's date is not disputed. He states that Pearse was sworn in in December, PP's biographer agrees. We should certainly go with December, as it is the most definite estimation provided. Mrs Clarke's "end of 1913" does not contradict "December", but it certainly rubbishes Neeson's date.--Damac (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

All it is, is the "estimation" of one man. Now I more than happy to leave as is, No problem there at all, but this must apply accross the board. As from now, I will just ignore all your personal stuff, as I have better things to be doing with my time. Now read up on WP:TPG, WP:SKILL, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:V and WP:RS, and should you breach them, I will quote the policies we have on wiki. --Domer48 (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It is more than the "estimation of one man", but the memory of the IRB functionary who swore Pearse into the IRB.

The material I removed was irrelevant and pointless. That it was referenced is besides the point. There is no rule on removing irrelevant referenced material.

Similarly, I too have better things to do with my time than read your litany of "plead read this" auto-commands.--Damac (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Supreme Council

There may be some confusion about Pearse's place on the Supreme Council and that of the Military Council. I will look it over later, unless anyone else wants to. --Domer48 (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt that Pearse was on the Military Council as soon as it was formed; if all sources agree on when that was we can probably put that matter to rest. As for the Supreme Council, it should be looked into. I'd be a bit uncertain of Kathleen Clarke, as she was not an involved party and was writing years later. I think it may be her who is perhaps confusing when Pearse was on the Supreme Council and when he was brought into the IRB in the first place. But it should be looked into. I believe O'Hegarty was on the Supreme Council, does he say anything about it? -R. fiend (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

All O'Hegarty says is that Pearse was drawn into the IRB through Hobson, who induced him, in June, 1913, to write a series of articles for Irish Freedom, and towards the end of that year swore him into the organization. --Domer48 (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least that's further evidence that Neeson is wrong, and it backs up Hobson's date of December(ish). It also seems to contradict Kathleen Clarke's assertion that Pearse was on the Supreme Council in December, as it seems impossible that he'd be promoted so highly within weeks (days?) of being first sworn in. This is particularly unlikely given his imminent departure for the USA, and his vocal support for Home Rule a couple years earlier. Seems she's confusing his promotion to the Supreme Council with his initial entry into the organization. -R. fiend (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Blockquotes

There are far too many blockquotes in this article. Virtually none of them are necessary. An encyclopedia article should state facts e.g. "Pearse at his court-martial said that he had worked all his life for Irish freedom", "Æ, in a poem, said that Pearse's sacrifice had made his spirit rise." The blockquotes to my mind take from the article rather than adding to it. Scolaire (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Little Lad of Tricks

Why cant this poem be quoted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.252.66 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The short answer is: because this is not a poetry book. A more interesting question, though, is this: why has this particular poem been added to the article, without any comment or context, so many times at irregular intervals by a succession of usernames and IPs? Either a lot of people, or one person with a lot of identities, apparently think that the significance of this English translation of this (not especially good) poem is blindingly obvious, but the other strange thing is that none of them have ever bothered to explain its significance either in their edit summaries or on this page (NB there is a paragraph in the article dealing with it). BTW I believe that A Chinn Aluinn should also be removed for the same reason (see above). Scolaire (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think its because he claims to get more out of kissing a young boy on the lips than a women.87.198.228.246 (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

And that is significant how? Scolaire (talk) 06:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

it shows all the allegations on police records in london about him are true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.252.66 (talk) 10:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What police records? Where in London? And what allegations - that he wrote a poem about a boy? And even if you can answer those questions, how can it "show" it if you just dump the poem willy-nilly in the article without comment or context? If you get a sexual thrill from typing a harmless poem in an encyclopædia article, that's your problem. But it will be speedily removed each time. Scolaire (talk) 10:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I just looked up that poem and it doesnt seem harmless. I wouldnt leave him to mind children. It raises serious questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.225.170 (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The simple fact is the british had a file on him claiming he abuse children.Emma Washington (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Simple, verifiable fact? And how does a poem to a fictional boy prove he abused real-life children? Scolaire (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)