Talk:Easter Rising

Commanders and leaders

I think Augustine Birrell and Matthew Nathan should be included on the British side. Birrell was Chief Secretary for Ireland and Nathan was Under-Secretary and both men coordinated the British response to the Easter Rising. I also think it would make sense to change W. H. M. Lowe to William Lowe (British Army officer) since the article has been renamed such. 64.132.0.200 (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Why are the Irish leaders incorrectly marked as "Killed in Action" instead of an older version which correctly says "Executed"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.123.236.5 (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean in the infobox at the side? That change seems to have been introduced in edits by Brigade Piron who added in a "Killed in action" template. I've reverted that change, as you correctly point out, the Irish leaders were executed after the Rising. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The Template: Executed Symbol

I just reverted to a previous editors change of Template: KIA to Template: Executed in the info box for the rebellions leaders. My reading of the WP template info indicates that this is quite correct in its usage. On the other hand some might object to the symbol used by the template. If anywhere that belongs in a discussion on the template. No? Juan Riley (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• For reference see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Executed and 2010 discussion of template: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_19#Template:Executed Juan Riley (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It is a plain ugly thing, not adding any real value to the article. So to my opinion the removal was correct. The Banner talk 23:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
    • The KIA etc is used in many articles' infoboxes. I agree that the symbol chosen for Executed by someone years ago may be grotesque. (I am attempting to not show my POV like a pink slip...but frankly I find the action of execution more grotesque than the symbol). But I am not arguing for the symbol. Asking simply that if the usage of this template in this article is not justified...then where is it justified? If the argument is that this symbol should not be used...or even that the template shouldn't exist...well...it should be taken it to another place. Why I looked up past discussions.Juan Riley (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

With respect, you're arguing from the particular to the general. If the template should not be used on this article then it should not be used on this article. If you want to raise the wider question, "where should it be used?", then, as you say, you need to do that elsewhere. My own feeling is that I would prefer it not to be used on this article, per The Banner. Scolaire (talk) 19:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Scolaire, with respect, I note that you "revert pending talk page discussion". Sigh, I had thought that's what I had done. Whatever. Above, I wasn't attempting to employ any highfalutin rhetorical device or fallacy. I was just noting that by design the template's intended usage appears to cover this case--and therefore I reverted their deletion and here asked for the arguments as to why they should be deleted. Moreover I wanted to separate off arguments against the template "in general" from those against its specific usage here. So far, if I collect, the arguments given for deletion of the templates are (pardon me if I rhetorically assume the fiction that they are still in the article): they "don't really need to be here", "plain ugly thing" with "no real value", and "would prefer it not to be used on this article". That about sum it up? Juan Riley (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The template was added only two days ago, so you weren't reverting to the status quo ante by re-adding it. Your assessment of the arguments against its inclusion here is accurate IMO. However, since there is no policy or guideline that I know of that says a template has to be used in the kind of article it was designed for, they are perfectly valid arguments. You said above, "or even that the template shouldn't exist". I certainly would not be upset if it was deleted. But that, as you say, is an argument for elsewhere. The question here is, is it wanted in this article? The consensus seems to be no, it is not. If the discussion widens, and a consensus for inclusion emerges, then it can be put back. But right now it should not. Scolaire (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, I followed your link to the TfD: it was a very brief discussion and a very weak keep. It's certainly not a strong argument for its use in any article. Scolaire (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Scolaire...with respect...read all I have written and see if I am (yet) arguing for use of the   tag. The issue has been arguments against (well until you boldly reverted I guess). I do understand the personal distaste folk might have for the template. I might even agree with the arguments. Odd when it was a christian orientated cross for a factually incorrect tag (KIA) they had no problem. And please don't use moral imperatives like "should". As I said...personal distaste seems to be the consensus argument against the use of the   tag. Is there a WP acronym for this? WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Juan Riley (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Juan, with respect, I did read all that you wrote and I found it very hard to follow. I did not know what you were arguing, but on balance it appeared to me that you were arguing for the retention of the skull and cross-bones. Certainly, you were taking me to task for removing it. I answered by stating my opinion that until there was an obvious consensus for its restoration it should not be restored. Referring to that as a "use of moral imperative" is tendentious in my opinion.

WP:IDONTLIKEIT says, "Content on Wikipedia is judged based on its compliance with guidelines, not its physical appearance. Once you can make all the content comply, you can then work with that and tidy it up" (emphasis added). Since names with skull-and-crossbones, names with crosses and names with nothing all comply equally with guidelines, the only remaining question was whether editors liked it or not. Therefore we had every right to express our opinions in any terms we chose, as long as we remained civil. Scolaire (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I made the edit on the 13th of May restoring the "executed" tag. My intention was to replace the gravestone cross which is also used on WikiPedia as a marker for KIA (and therefore inaccurate in this article). I have problems marking the Irish leaders as "executed" is so cursory a manner as adding a symbol after their names, when the importance of their execution (to the sympathy given to the rising) is better dealt with at more length in the text. However, if those more experienced in WikiPedia deem an icon necessary, then it should be the correct one. For what it's worth, I prefer the absence of any icon. Greg 89.101.235.207 (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

That works for me Greg. Juan Riley (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

No chance of success

Shouldn't the article mention the fact that the rebellion in April 1916 never had any chance of succeeding? (WilliamKillarney (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC))

Sorry, but the rebellion was a success. It finally woke up the people... The Banner talk 20:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

No. It was crushed within a week. Even Michael Collins said the 1916 rebellion never had a chance of succeeding. (WilliamKillarney (talk) 07:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC))

Do you really think we won't know who you are? You are a sock of a banned user and your trolling is so obvious it has "no chance of success". Scolaire (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Sock blocked.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

User:The Banner, the rising itself was a failure. The British response afterwards is what woke Irish nationalists up. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

That is only one point of view. There are distinguished historians who say it was the rising itself. I'm sorry you feel the need to support a tendentious claim by a banned user. Scolaire (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't know where you get that conclusion from about me supporting the user but that is only one point of view. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Tis semantics and hindsight you are arguing about. Both of which are arguably POV's. Juan Riley (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

This series of edits had the appearance of being the start of an expansion of the article. However, a week has passed and no further work has been done, so I am going to revert them. As part of that I'm reverting the addition of the Fianna and the Hibernian Rifles to the infobox, because it was agreed in a previous discussion that it should be limited to the three main organisations. Scolaire (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Why was a parliament not created in 1915?

As Home Rule was suspended for a year in September 1914, why was a parliament not created in September 1915? (TalbertTaylor (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC))