Jump to content

Talk:Proclamation of the Irish Republic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.42.82.239 (talk) at 01:57, 20 November 2007 (→‎'Though unelected' revisited). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Page move

The Easter Proclamation article and its associated talk page were moved to Proclamation of the Irish Republic on 2 June 2007. Scolaire 10:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Clarke

The Tom Clarke on this page links to a very different Tom Clarke. Is there any way to fix that?

Done. It could probably use a little work though. Turned out substantially longer than I thought it would when I started. Can you get the link on this page to direct to it? Thanx -R. fiend

Nevermind. I think I got it to work. -R. fiend

  • Nicely done. I gave it a brief once-over for spelling and wikiformatting. A very informative article, hope you'll do others as well! -- Nunh-huh 23:09, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanx. I've done a couple more, and there are now articles for most of the proclamation signatories; do you think you can put up links for all 7 on this page? Someone did a Joseph Plunkett stub which I was considering expanding on sometime, so the only red link is Thomas MacDonagh, which I also may work on soon.

Feel free to look over Sean MacDermott and Eamonn Ceannt and make necesary changes, you did a good job on the Tom Clarke one. -R. fiend

Here you go, just a matter of putting them in double brackets:

Copy in the GPO

This is on display in the Philatelic Office and is not well signposted. It is, however, an original copy signed by the person who picked it up in 1916, and has a very good explanatory text beside it. Scolaire 14:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Name

If it's officially referred to as "Proclamation of the Republic", why is it here at "Easter Proclamation" (which is a very ambiguous title, even if the former doesn't say which Republic).

zoney ♣ talk 12:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's called the 'Easter Proclamation' because it was proclaimed on Easter Monday 1916, but, yeah, I agree with you, 'Proclamation of the Irish Republic' would be a better title.

Scolaire 17:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easter Proclamation captures it best in English, resurrection, rebirth, renewal etc. El Gringo 17:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...that the Rising's leaders, though unelected, spoke for Ireland...

I asked this question on jtdirl's talk page:

"In reverting my edit (it was me although I forgot to log in), you say: "some rebels are elected. This lot weren't." Surely a rebellion is an action against an elected government? I checked out the Rebellion article in Wikipedia and I can't see any mention of rebels who were elected. Can you give me some examples?"

jtdirl has not responded. In any event, since the Proclamation does not say: "Ireland, through us (though we are unelected), summons her children to her flag...", is is not correct to say that that is one of the assertions made in it.

Scolaire 07:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebellions can occur through a number of ways involving a number of groups. They include

  • unelected rebels;
  • elected leaders or their supporters excluded from office by a military junta who didn't like the result of an election;
  • supporters of democratic governments deposed in coups;
  • regional separatist movements that have contested elections, etc.

The key thing about the 1916 rebels was that they had no electoral mandate whatsoever. Unlike various groups trying to stage rebellions (usually very badly) in Burma, Greece under the junta, Vichy France, various African states, etc the 1916 leaders had no form of mandate whatsoever. They didn't even have a political party until they took over Griffith's Sinn Féin. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 14:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

....or a secret organisation until they took over the IRB, which then subverted the Irish Volunteers.--Damac 15:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Perfectly true. It is important to distinguish between unelected rebels, elected leaders forced to rebellion by being denied power, elected leaders forced to become rebels through coups, etc. In Ireland there was an electoral methodology, albeit that the last general election took place in 1910. It is not saying they were right or wrong (member of my family were involved) simply that they had no electoral mandate behind their actions, because they were unelected. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 15:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of fine words, FÉ, but you still have not given a single concrete example (e.g. the name) of a rebel who was elected. Neither have you answered my point that the Proclamation merely asserts that the leaders spoke for Ireland, not that they spoke for ireland though unelected.
That they were unelected is a fact, but the fact is not relevant to an unbiased description of the document. The only concevable reason for inserting the words where they are is to put forward a point of view. That it is a point of view is borne out by your impassioned references to the leaders having "no form of mandate", "taking over Sinn Féin" etc. as well as your description of them in your original edit summary as "this lot". In removing the words I am trying to restore a neutral point of view.
That was your second revert. Please do not do it again.
Scolaire 08:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC) and apologies to anybody that read this before I remembered to sign it. Scolaire 15:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem with stating something that 100% of people acknowledge as fact, something stated in every schoolkid's history, something mentioned in every lecture on 1916, the fact that they were unelected? No-one on the planet disputes it. As to not relevant: they declared a state and declared themselves the "Provisional Government" of that state!!! The fact that people doing that were unelected is 100% relevant. Only you see a bias in stating universally acknowledged facts. Deleting universally accepted facts because you imagine a POV in them is seen on Wikipedia as vandalism and treated as much. As to their take over of Sinn Féin, everyone from FSL Lyons to Dorothy Macardle to private papers of Éamon de Valera in UCD all state that that is what they did. Sinn Féin leaders who joined the party in 1916 and 1917 made no secret of the fact. The Brits identified a party that had no links with the Rising as being responsible for it. Rather than start a new party Rising survivors simply took over the party the public, thanks to erronious media reports resulting from Dublin Castle briefings, blamed for the Rising, a perfectly logical action in the circumstances. Griffith said they took it over. De Valera said they took it over. If you don't know what happened, then look at the history books, look at the primary documents, go in to UCD and look at de Valera's papers, look at the accounts that happened at the time. All are 100% agreed that there was a takeover. My family was one of those at the time involved in that takeover. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's three reverts, FÉ.
Scolaire 22:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not in 24 hours. Read the rules. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about this for a compromise: 'that the Rising's leaders, though unelected, spoke for Ireland (a claim historically made by Irish insurrectionary movements) against the claims of the British state, though unelected, to rule Ireland (a claim historically made by British colonial governments)? El Gringo 22:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-starter. The issue was that the Irish people had elected their leaders. A set who had not contested an election, much less actually won anything, declared themselves a government over the heads of the elected leaders of the Irish people at the time. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the British political state was imposed upon the Irish people by an external force against their will- when was the vote for British rule?- this puts the importance of your entire emphasis on 'elected' politicians in context. In fact it's very much like pointing out that Petain's government was legitimately elected/nominated but ignoring the existence of a powerful German army as the critical factor in Vichy actions. You are, whether wilfully or not, omitting the context of those Irish elections and thus distorting the historical record. You treat the British state, the state which organised those elections, in Ireland as being based on something other than force. That is, quite simply, delusional. El Gringo 21:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your ignorance of Irish history is most amusing. Any chance you might read a history book sometime? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could enlighten us with your own brand of education, then? Or, when lost for a genuinely educated response, do you always resort to ad hominem? Your choice. El Gringo 21:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two degrees (first class) in history. Lecture in Irish and European history. Work with historians daily. Read primary sources for a living. Yours? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enough to not be impressed with a mere BA, or for that matter with any individual who feels insecure enough to throw letters around. Now, can you actually answer the question: how, since you claim to be so educated, was British rule based on something other than force? And what were those other things? I'll judge you on your answer, not your claims. El Gringo 22:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the 19th century (as presumably you know) the Irish people elected politicians, from Grattan through O'Connell (Daniel and Morgan), Saddler and Keogh, Butt, Parnell, Redmond, Healy, Dillon, McCarthy etc al who did not propose Ireland be a totally independent state, but have a structured link with the UK, either through a dual monarchy (Grattan, O'Connell, Griffith) or as a home rule state within the UK (Butt, Parnell, Redmond, Dillon, Healy, McCarthy, etc). Those campaigning for full independence rarely stood for election, when they did were trounced and ended up resorting to rebellions most of which were Faulty Towersesque fiascos. As late as the 1860s mainstream Irish nationalist assemblies ended with the signing of God Save the Queen. The party that later became a vehicle for Irish republicanism, Sinn Féin, was founded to campaign for a dual monarchy in which the British monarch as king of Ireland would reign in Ireland. Irish public opinion from the Act of Union to the First World War, through major broadening of the franchises, was dominated (92%+ of all votes cast) by nationalist parties who did not campaign for complete independence but for a revised relationship with the UK. That was the political reality. But then, if you had read Garvan, Lyons, Macardle, McCarthy, Murphy, Davies, Dunleavy, Coogan or any of the many authors on the era you'd you know that. The fact that you don't suggests you never read them. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be more accurate to say that your defensiveness on this issue betrays a strong desire to have your interpretation accepted, too strong in fact. Your use of ad hominem in this process, combined with listing a plethora of historians and political scientists to give the impression that you have read widely, points to a very immature writing style and a pointless puerility on your part. Nonetheless, you have still avoided the central issue, namely you are refusing to acknowledge the connection between Britain being the greatest power on earth, and the willingness of Irish politicians to adopt a 'constitutional' approach. You appear to be rejecting any link between the military defeat of the Irish, the predominance of British rule, and the willingness of the Irish to work within the British system. This, quite frankly, defies belief. You fall into that old trap of amateur historians by deeming the conformers to be the converted; by deeming practical acceptance as a means to survive as ideological acceptance of the régime. On this point you have failed to show how is it, if political positions were more than consequences of political reality, that since the mid-eighteeenth century the Catholic/nationalist community has persistently demanded more every time a concession has been achieved? If British rule had been ideologically accepted, as you imply it was, then why did this dynamic persist? Now, I would appreciate it if you could elucidate further and specifically by telling us if British power in Ireland was not shaping the tactics of realistic Irish politicians what was shaping their tactics? This answer would be instantly preferable to another recitation from an undergrad tutorial on 19th century Ireland. At present you are denying the link between both and implying that support for British rule was ideologically based. Was there any relationship between British power and the expressed views of Irish politicians? If not, would the Irish have been happy to be under, say, Luxembourgian rule? If control of force had nothing to do with political choices, then can we draw from that that the Irish as a people just liked being ruled over by others? El Gringo 23:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two flags

"...and made it their military headquarters, flying the new flag of the republic (a green flag with the words 'Irish Republic' emblazoned across it) from the flag-pole instead of the Union Jack which had hitherto flown there. The flag of the military unit that seized the GPO, E Company, a green, white and orange tricolour, was also flown on a lower flag-pole. The GPO, the Easter Proclamation and the tricolour (which later came to be seen as the flag of the republic, replacing the original green flag, which is now on display in the National Museum of Ireland) are the three most identifiable symbols of the Easter Rising, alongside the leaders, such as Pearse, Tom Clarke, James Connolly and others."

I think this passage is a bit unwieldy, and places too much emphasis on flags, in an article about the Proclamation. I'm also a bit puzzled at the suggestion that the tricolour was the flag of a local IV company, rather than the 70-year-old symbol of Irish unity that most history books tell us it was. Finally, I would suggest that the 'Irish Republic' flag, rather than the tricolour, was the most identifiable symbol of the Rising. Therefore I propose to replace the foregoing with:

"...and made it their military headquarters, flying the new flag of the republic (a green flag with the words 'Irish Republic' emblazoned across it) from the flag-pole instead of the Union Jack which had hitherto flown there. This flag, the GPO and the Proclamation are the three most identifiable symbols of the Easter Rising, along with the Rising's leaders, the seven signatories of the Proclamation"

I am also moving the "Principles of the proclamation" paragraph to after the text, since it is essentially a commentary on the text.

Scolaire 18:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. That is what the National Museum, which owns the flags, says. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being such a baby!
This is not your article. Reasonable edits made in good faith cannot be reverted just like that.
This has gone way beyond a joke!
Scolaire 21:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting chunks of information that doesn't suit your personal POV is vandalism. Users have been blocked as vandals for removing chunks of articles to push their POV agenda. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Deep breath. Try again. I have no particular POV as regards flags. But the Proclamation is a piece of paper and the flag is a piece of fabric and I think that a long discussion of one in an article about the other is distracting, and no offence intended to the original author. It might be usefully moved to the Easter Rising main article or the Flag of Ireland article. I am doing a slightly less radical edit now, and I encourage anybody to edit further, but please do not simply revert, because an article cannot grow if one editor clings to his or her own text.
Scolaire 15:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

The infobox is beautifully laid out, but unfortunately it is just too large for an article of this size, especially when there are other graphics close to the top. I hope you don't mind that I have shortened it so that the items most relevant to this article are displayed. Scolaire 08:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is now much shortened, the infobox still does not fit in here without disrupting the text. You have now created a very nice shortenened version for documents which I think is ideal for here since (a) this is an article about a document, (b) the infobox links to the larger one and (c) the larger one is now on the main Easter Rising article, which is as it should be.
Scolaire 18:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Though unelected' revisited

I still feel strongly that these two words are POV. My reasoning is as follows:

  • Without the two words the section reads: "The document consisted of a number of assertions...that the Rising's leaders spoke for Ireland". This is NPOV and in fact stating the obvious, since the text is right there in the previous section.
  • With the two words the section effectively reads: "The document consisted of a number of assertions...that the Rising's leaders spoke for Ireland, which was not in fact true". I'm not saying this is right or wrong, only that it is POV.

I hope that adequately explains my reasons for deleting these two words.
Scolaire 19:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Christ, are we expected to believe the British went around canvassing for votes when they sent Humphrey Gilbert, Richard Bingham and Oliver Cromwell over to Ireland? The merchants of genocide are now really the merchants of democracy? And there was I thinking that in May 1613 the British overthrew the entire Irish parliament. The Irish people never voted for the British occupation of Ireland, which the Rising's leaders were trying to overthrow. Never. The sentence as it stands implies that that occupation had democratic legitimacy. It never, ever, ever did. 86.42.82.239 (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easter Proclamation vs Exultet

The Exultet (a catholic hymn) is greatly referred to as the 'Easter Proclamation' - a cursory Google search will corroborate this. I was puzzled to find myself reading about an utterly dissimilar article when I searched for 'Easter Proclamation'. I have disambiguated the matter by adding a sentence at the beginning of the article. Chris Buttigieg 10:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name revisited

In the light of the above, and following on from an earlier discussion, I propose to move this article to Proclamation of the Irish Republic (which Mike Rosoft has very kindly created for us) and make this article a disambiguation page. Scolaire 07:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think its more commonly known as the "Easter Proclamation" - but possibly move it to "Proclamation of the Irish Republic" with the original page pointing towards both the hymn and the Proclamation.--Vintagekits 10:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to agree with the move. Seems to be a more proper title. -R. fiend 21:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concur Brendandh 00:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Scolaire 10:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Names of the signatories / See also

In the "see also" section I have reverted to the names as they appear on the proclamation, elsewhere I have reverted to the names by which they were commonly known (see my comments on the Talk:Thomas Clarke (Irish republican) page).
Also, why are there so many entries in the "See also" section? Most of them have no direct relevance to the Proclamation, only a vague connection in that they deal with Irish history of the 1916-1922 period.
Scolaire 13:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proclamation_of_the_Irish_Republic&oldid=172614402"