Talk:Easter Rising

Should "rising" be capititalized?

Should rising be in capitals or lowercase here? For example, here's a section from the article: Three unarmed Dublin Metropolitan Police were shot dead on the first day of the Rising and their Commissioner pulled them off the streets. Partly as a result of the police withdrawal, a wave of looting broke out in the city centre, especially in the O'Connell Street area. A total of 425 people were arrested after the Rising for looting. I would put Rising in lowercase, but I want to gain consensus before I do. Peter Sam Fan | talk 15:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Disagree, it is an event not a type of event so should be capitalised ----Snowded ^TALK 16:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Peter Sam Fan | chat? 16:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Death of Richard O'Carroll

Would someone please note that Richard O'Carroll was captured and shot on Wednesday, April 26, not Tuesday, April 25. The source is Bryan Bacon's "A Terrible Duty: the Madness of Captain Bowen-Colthurst".CanK9 (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. The shooting was covered in existing refs, so it wasn't necessary to add a new one. I gather that A Terrible Duty is a Kindle-only book, hence the absence of page numbers. It wouldn't be considered as authoritative as the major works on the Rising: Caulfield, Townshend, McGarry and Yeates. Scolaire (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Max Caulfield's "Easter Rebellion" (which is NOT footnoted) makes errors in discussing Bowen-Colthurst and his victims. For instance, Coade was not on the ground when Colthurst shot him. Though occasionally supporting the British war effort, Dickson's "Eye Opener" was not a 'violently Loyalist paper' (Copies of MacIntyre's Searchlight are apparently not extant). Colthurst did not tell Sergeant Aldridge that he was going to shoot the prisoners. McTurk did not find Colthurst "rational enough". (He prescribed potassium bromide for him.). Though an exciting story and well told, Caulfield's work has perhaps been superseded by more recent sources.

Before dismissing Bryan Bacon's "A Terrible Duty: the Madness of Captain Bowen-Colthurst" out of hand, it might be worthwhile reading it. (It is footnoted). I would recommend Wiki contributors read that book or James Taylor's forthcoming (June) title "Guilty but Insane" before amending or adding material on Bowen Colthurst for this article.CanK9 (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of the pitfalls of citing Caulfield. However, none of the details that you say are incorrect are in this article in any shape or form, and in any case the paragraph containing the shooting of Richard O'Carroll has five citations, not just Caulfield. "More recent sources" does not always equal "better sources"; I would be concerned that there does not seem to be a review of Bacon's book in places like the national newspapers or the Dublin Review of Books. I get that you think it's a great book and you'd like people to read it, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. Bear in mind also that this is not an article on the Bowen-Colthurst killings. I would not expect the paragraph on them to grow any more, but if it is edited I trust the editors to get it right by referring to the accepted authorities on the Rising. Scolaire (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem with Caulfield is that because it's not footnoted, one really doesn't know which statements are reliable and which are not. The other sources are fine but they don't discuss Colthurt's part in the Rising in detail. Colthurst appears in the article so it seems reasonable that if anyone wanted to know more about him, they should be able follow up on the only comprehensive resource currently available.CanK9 (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's actually possible to be more comprehensive on Easter Week than existing books, because the only primary sources are the commission of enquiry and Hanna Sheehy-Skeffington's booklet. If Bacon had come up with anything new after 100 years, you may be sure the reviewers would have taken notice. If I'm wrong, you can tell me what these new sources are. At any rate, anything in that paragraph is both adequately sourced and factual. Citations are for verification, not for "following up". Scolaire (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The information we had about Colthurst's activities during the Rising was based primarily on incomplete accounts of Colthurst's court martial and on the published 'Royal Commission on the arrest on 25 April... MacIntyre'. Unfortunately the transcript of the court martial was suppressed and the (crucial) evidential proceedings of the Royal Commission were never published, so myths about Colthurst continue to be reproduced . In the absence of official transcripts, authors should perhaps use the original 1916 reports of the court martial and of the Royal Commission in the daily Irish Times, the Irish Independent, and the weekly Irish Times (as reproduced in the 'Sinn Fein Rebellion Handbook'), and the 'Searchable Press Cuttings, Part 2' issued by the Bureau of Military History. (The 1916 newspaper accounts are comprehensive and pretty reliable as they can be cross-checked). Based on the continuing errors about Colthurst in a number of books and newspapers and on the internet , it would appear that few authors have checked their facts against these sources.CanK9 (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Executed

User:The Banner, what problem did you have with me adding the   icon behind the names of the commanders executed as a result of the insurrection, as per Template:Executed? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

This was previously discussed here, about a year ago. There was a consensus that the icon was ugly and unnecessary. Note the last two posts, where the two editors who were adding the icon agreed that the infobox would be better with nothing at all. Scolaire (talk) 09:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hm, I don't see a concensus there, but thanks for pointing it out. I guess it's personal taste and I don't pretend mine is more valid than others, so I won't argue. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Does seem unnecessary and in poor taste. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

German Empire as a combatant

Moved from my talk page:

Although it may seem unlikely, and is a little known fact, thee was significant German naval activity in the run up to the rising. Lowestoft and were bombarded in England, the SS Libau attempted to drop weapons, and U-19 landed Roger Casement and a number of others in Kerry after their mission to Berlin.

The action in the North Sea included elements of the German High Seas Fleet and the British Grand Fleet. It was fought to coincide with the Rising. Source: 'Easter Rising 1916 - Birth of the Irish Republic.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leanseahy (talk • contribs) 07:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I presume you're referring to this book. You'll see that it has a chapter on the opposing commanders and another on the opposing armies, and neither of them has any Germans in it. I can't see the reference to the bombardment of Lowestoft and [where?], but I think you'll find that Germany and Britain were involved in a less-well-known conflict at the time. Scolaire (talk) 07:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for the poor composition of the previous post, I was in a hurry this morning.

The raid on Lowestoft and Yarmouth was specifically planned in conjuction with the Easter Rising and so it should be added to this article.

Obviously it is common knowledge that the German Navy stopped off Roger Casement and co and delivered weapons so It's amazing to me that Germany hasn't already been listed as at the very least a supporting nation. The naval action in the North Sea should be justification for inclusion as a full belligerent.

Just because things aren't well known surely doeant mean they should be removed, does it?

Perhaps you could refrain from making sarcastic remarks in future too.

Regards Leanseahy. Leanseahy (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The Bombardment of Yarmouth and Lowestoft article says that "the raid was timed to coincide with the expected Easter Rebellion by Irish Nationalists, who had requested German assistance." War and Security says that "[Reinhard] Scheer’s memoirs makes no mention of events in Ireland when discussing this operation, but the British Official History argues that they influenced at least its timing. Scheer says that the objective was to force British ships out of port by naval bombardment of Lowestoft and Yarmouth and airship raids on Harwich, Ipswich, Lincoln and Norwich." There is a world of difference between an act of war being timed to coincide with a rebellion, and actually being a part of that rebellion. It had no demonstrable effect on the Rising itself, so I can't see any reason to deal with it in this article. The Aud and Casement's submarine are adequately covered in the article. They don't merit the inclusion of Germany in the infobox. Apologies for the sarcasm; Wikipedia will do that to you. Scolaire (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough I guess, although I was hoping to be able to do something similar to how the Battle of Tory Island is presented on Wikipedia. This is listed as a part of both the French Revolutionary Wars and the 1798 Rebellion. Still, you are of course correct in saying Lowestoft and Yarmouth was more to do with WWI that the Easter Rising. Would it not make sense to add the German Empire as a support though? Leanseahy (talk) 11:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Never seen any plausible evidence of proper German involvement. Then again in hindsight do republicans really want to be associated with the big bad Reich in both World Wars ;-) Mabuska ^(talk) 15:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring the previous unhelpful comment ;-) The infobox was never meant to be "everything you need to know about the subject". That's what the article is for. The infobox is a ready reference, containing the most salient details. What these are must necessarily be decided by consensus. This infobox has been the subject of discussion on several occasions. The most thorough discussion was at Talk:Easter Rising/Archive 4#Belligerents, which came up with the current consensus. I'm sure there must have been discussion of Germany as well at some point, but there has never been a consensus to add them to the infobox. Scolaire (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Executions

It was the execution of the leaders that turned public opinion against the UK. The rising itself was a complete failure. (2A00:23C4:6388:7300:2827:13C0:2A9B:BFC3 (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC))