Talk:Erskine Childers (author)

Start classification

I have classified this article as a start due to its level of organisation and detail. Capitalistroadster 06:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Changed DSO to DSC - I've seen this mistake elsewhere. Removed "Soon Childers was regarded as a traitor not only by the British, but by the pro-Treaty Free State government in Dublin, which was under increasing pressure from Winston Churchill and the British government to take violent reprisal measures against the anti-treaty forces and their leaders." as the civil war had started, so pretty obvious.Red Hurley (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Automatic Pistol or Revolver

On the Main page, 23-24th of November, the pistol Childers was carrying when he was arrested was described as a revolver, where as in the article it is described as a small caliber automatic pistol. Clearly, they cannot both be correct. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 02:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The weapon was presented to the Defence Forces Museum in October 1995 and photographs appeared in the press. It's a pistol. Now cited in article.--Old Moonraker (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Article name

Adhering to the Wikipedia naming convention would have this article named "Erskine Childers", with the full name as a redirect page and given in the lead paragraph. I'm inclined to make the change, subject to other editors' thoughts. --Old Moonraker (talk) 23:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No. He is generally known by all three names. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of The Riddle of the Sands, where it's "Erskine Childers" only. This is what he is most famous for and therefore this is the name that best fits the naming convention. This isn't plain at the moment; in fact the novel isn't even in the lead paragraph. However if the current name stands (and there are too many pointless changes on WP already) it wouldn't be difficult to make the point: something like: as "Erskine Childers" he was the author of... would cover it. --Old Moonraker (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Per Kittybrewster, I think the current name most completely meets COMMONNAME. Though no reason not to mention "pen name" elsewhere. Guliolopez (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I confess that I hadn't considered this from the Irish point of view when I made the suggestion, only thinking of it after Kittybrewster's the first post in reply. "REC" is obviously valid there, to distinguish him from President Erskine Childers, but "EC" is probably the common name from Wikipedia's worldwide reach and perspective. However, I sought other editors' views and if they continue along the lines already posted I'll be tweaking the text instead.--Old Moonraker (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I am British - not Irish. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm dropping the suggestion: expanded "Erskine" in the lead paragraph instead. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

See WP:LEADCITE regarding the unfortunate necessity of having these unsightly refs in the lead paragraph if it contains "material that is challenged". --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Irish Convention and Anglo-Irish Treaty

A recent edit duplicated some material, already included, regarding the Irish Convention. I've removed it, but that's not to say that the topic couldn't be expanded. I also need to get on with the Anglo-Irish Treaty, where Childers was also secretary, this time on the "other" side. This is an important episode and similarly needs to be covered in more detail. It's gradually rising to the top of my "to do pile", unless someone else has the inclination. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Date of his wife's death

The article on Mary Childers give the year of her death as 1974, while this article gives it as 1964. It cannot be that both are correct. Snezzy (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, with acknowledgement to you. Good catch. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

conversion

There was not one incident which was responsible for Childers's conversion from loyal supporter of the British Empire to extreme Irish nationalist: a nationalist so intemperate that his opposition to compromise is sometimes credited with bringing about the Irish Civil War

This sentence is loaded with pov. First off Childers was a republican, secondly the use of the adjective 'extreme' is fatous, uneccessary and pov. The use of the adjective 'intemperate' is also pov and the idea that childers was in any way personally responisble for the civil war is actually civil war propaganda designed to justify his execution. It is unseemly in an encyclopedia. I'm editing this to something more sensible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.102.222 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Extreme" is in the refs. If it's in the refs, from a definitive source, it's difficult to condemn it as WP:NPOV. A further reference for "extreme" added.
• The article doesn't state that Childers was responsible for the civil war: it says that people "credit" him with this. That's a very big difference, and totally encyclopaedic.
• The suggestion that Childers was blamed for the war as propaganda to justify his execution is interesting and worthy of inclusion in the article, if a reliable source can be found. Note, however, that one of the sources quoted is Childers himself, writing in 1921, which tends to diminish the force of this argument. The extent of the propaganda, both by Childers and about Childers, could certainly do with more examination in the article.

--Old Moonraker (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Afterthought re the "first off" contention, above: Childers segued from British Empire loyalist via Irish nationalist to Irish Republican. If, in the context of this sentence, "Republican" is a better fit for his final mindset, then that's a worthwhile change. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

who and, indeed why, they 'credit' him needs to be contextualised. The article doesn't do that. If indeed such contextualisation was done it would show clearly that it was only certain people on a certain side of the civil war divide that credited him. Any reference to this 'crediting' in an article on his life would only be relevant because of this fact. As it stands the sentence is clearly pov as it implies that this crediting' is somehow more wide spread than it is. The use of the adjective 'intemperate' is unnecessary and pov.

After his 'conversion' to republicanism Childers aims remained (until this death) the basic nationalist aim of a Nation state covering what was considered the national territory. On any neutral scale this is not extreme but the basic precpets of being a nationalist. It is only from the point of view of one side of the civil war that this appears 'extreme'. References that seem to employ emotional and point of view language do not make the point any less pov.