Talk:Easter Rising

Tagged for (lack of) accuracy

I see Superfopp has managed to bring his disruption to this article now. Although I'm in the process of rewriting this article, the Jackanory bollocks he's just added merits tagging:

• "In County Wexford, about 600 Volunteers took over Enniscorthy on Thursday 27 April" - no.
• "The Volunteers blocked all roads and the railway line" - no.
• "Shots were fired and one constable was wounded, although no real attempt was made to seize the barracks" - no.
• "A group was sent north and took over the town of Ferns, but retreated upon spotting a force of 1000 British soldiers heading for Enniscorthy" - no.
• "However, the Volunteer leaders were sceptical of the news and refused to surrender until Patrick Pearse confirmed it to them" - no.
• "Later that day, the British escorted two of the leaders to Dublin, where they met Pearse in Kilmainham Gaol" - absolutely and unequivocally no.

I suggest that you fix the total and utter fiction you've added to this article, this is an encyclopedia not a storybook. One editor has been recently banned for making things up, I suggest in future you ensure you stick to what the sources actually say not what you think they say. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No attempt to defend the edits or correct them then? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit I don't know much about the Rising outside of Dublin, so, other than the last one which certainly seems wrong to me, I can't comment except to say he does provide a source. He seems to rely exclusively on a recent book by John Boyle, which I had not heard of until now. Is the book incorrect, is he misquoting it, or are these edits basically true? What's your take? Take your first example. What's incorrect: the number of Volunteers, that they took over Enniscorthy, the date, or all of it? What sources contradict this? As I said, I really don't know, but I would be hesitant to remove material that appears to be well sourced just on the say-so of another editor.

I will say this, though: using the exact same footnote for every single sentence in multiple paragraphs is poor form. No one but Wikipedia seems to do this. That at the very least should be fixed. -R. fiend (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Like most edits by the editor in question, there is either a deliberate misuse of sources or a clear case of failure to understand basic English.

"Enniscorthy contains about 5,000 inhabitants, and is a prosperous place in ordinary times. In Easter week, however, business was neglected, and the town seethed with excitement over the news of the revolutioon in Dubln. It was Thursday morning, however, before the insurgents were ready to act. About two o'clock that day, to the number of over two hundred, they seized the Athenaeum, one of the most prominent buildings in the town, and proceeded to convert it into their headquarters." The only mention I can see of 600 is in the sentence "In Wexford town itself the National Volunteers, who were followrs of Mr. Redmond, turned out to assist the military and police, and 600 special contables were enrolled, the Mayor being of the number." which appears a considerable distance later in the chapter. So that doesn't even refer to the Irish Volunteers, but the number of special contables enrolled to help suppress the Rising.

"The insurgents next turned their attention to the railway station. They cut the telephone and telegraph wires, tore yp the line, held up and took possession of a train that was proceeding from Wexford to Arklow with 300 working men for Kynoch's munition factory. They tried to blow up a bridge at Scara Walsh over the River Slaney, and were also about to destory the viaduct at Enniscorthy, but at the last moment changed their minds. They commandeered over a score of motor-cars in the town, took control of various houses which controlled the roads leading to Enniscorthy, and then extended their operations into the adjoining country." How that becomes "The Volunteers blocked all roads and the railway line" is beyond me, anyone else?

"They attacked the police station, which was defended by constables armed with rifles, but were unable to gain possession. One of the constables was wounded, and this, singular to say, was the only casualty in the whole rising as far as the county Wexford was concerned". So we have the remarkable bias of "although no real attempt was made to seize the barracks" added making it seem as though the Volunteers failed to seize the barracks because they couldn't really be bothered, when the source doesn't say that.

"They advanced and captured the town of Ferns, making an old mansion in the vicinity their headquarters. They were about to progress in the Gorey direction when the arrival of the military made them retire on their main position, which they had hastily fortified by digging some trenches. Some thought seems to have been bestowed on the advisability of imiating the example of their ancestors and making a stand on the dominating height of Vinegar Hill, but in the absence of artillery it was felt that this would be an impossible position to maintain. they still, however, held the town of Enniscorthy, where the flag of the "Irish Republic" was hoisted. Then a few pargraphs later "On Monday morning a force of 1,000 troops, comprising cavalry, infantry and artillery, under the command of Colonel French, entered the town, which from the previous Thursday had been almost completely in the possession of the insurgents". So "A group was sent north and took over the town of Ferns, but retreated upon spotting a force of 1000 British soldiers heading for Enniscorthy" is classic synthesis, there's nothing that says the first group of military is the same as the one referred to later.

The other problems have been changed already, like the part about Pearse being held in Kilmainham Gaol when he was actually at Arbor Hill until after his court-martial? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am well acquainted with the "deliberate fraud/comprehension fail" conundrum, and I, for one, won't try to make a call as to what we're dealing with here. But it hardly matters. Now, you don't say where these quotes are coming from, so I assume they're the same source cited in the article, is that right? Looks pretty good to me. I say go ahead and make corrections based on the source. You can probably cut out a good amount, as it does seem the Enniscorthy campaign was not exactly the most significant aspect of Easter Week. I'd help, but not having the source I'd be of little use. Anyone else want to weigh in? -R. fiend (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be 'be bold' (sic) and rewrite this section now. It's been tagged for too long as it is. Ans, as outlined above, there are serious problems. Jdorney (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes those quotes were direct from the book, I should have said that really. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Link to Sinn Féin

The third paragraph of this article refers to 73 republicans (then represented by the Sinn Féin party) being returned in the 1918 general election.

"Sinn Féin", however, links to the article about the current Sinn Féin - not to the SF that existed in 1918. Accordingly, I changed the link so that it directed to History of Sinn Féin, which is the more relevant article, given that it deals in depth with SF in 1918. Unfortunately, the change has been reverted.

To link to the Sinn Féin article is a breach of NPOV as it gives readers the impression that the current party bearing the SF name is the one and the same as the party elected in 1918, without any regard to the numerous splits and offshoots that have occurred since (i.e. it gives credence to the particular POV that the current SF (and not any other SF or SF-offshoot) is the one true and unambiguous heir to the party of 1918). This issue has caused great dispute on the SF article, so there should be no excuse for my edit being reverted by someone who was aware of the controversy. The SF article says that the current party was formed in 1970.

Any other views? Mooretwin (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Give it up, Mooretwin. The SF article does not say that the current party was formed in 1970, it says that it originated in the SF organisation of 1905 and took its current form in 1970. The "great dispute" was carried on by you alone, against the rest of Wikipedia, for nigh-on two years. It took the intervention of a neutral admin to establish definitively that your "one true and unambiguous" POV was against consensus. Your attempts to continue your POV war on History of Sinn Féin also failed for lack of consensus. You are now attempting the same thing again by editing over a range of articles, including deliberately provocative edit summaries referring to "PSF". You are asking for another block. Scolaire (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not make untrue statements. The dispute was not carried out by me alone: that is a lie. Please retract it. Please also desist from making threats and stick to discussing the content of the article. Other than to deny that the current article states that the party was formed in 1970 (look at the infobox), have you anything else to say in response to my contribution above? The SF article is deliberately ambiguous, the claim that the current SF is the singular inheritor of the 1905 SF is controversial (even you don't agree with that), so the most neutral thing to do here is link to the History article, and not to the article about the current party. Mooretwin (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Reaction of Dublin Public

This section as it stands (17/5/10) is totally unbalanced.

Peter Beresford Ellis's account is the only one credited with accuracy when there are dozens of accounts from the time and from subsequent historians of extreme hostility to the Volunteers after the Rising. It's fine to note that this conventional wisdom is disputed but not to say that PBE is right and everyone else is wrong.

In this interview http://www.theirishstory.com/2010/05/05/ferghal-mcgarry-interview/ Fearghal McGarry, who just written a book on the subject based on the Military History Archives (interviews with participants) says there are some accounts of support for the Volunteers but many more of them being abused, spat at, hit etc, by civilians after the Rising.

This section needs to be totally re-written if it's to reflect the balance of historical work done on the subject.

Jdorney (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you have a good point there. Sometimes articles get hijacked by a single source, and it's happened before with this one (at one point this article might have almost been called "Eoin Neeson's view of the Easter Rising") and the reaction section seems to basically present Peter Beresford Ellis as the sole authority. I think it is better to start with the conventional wisdom view, that the public reacted largely negatively, and present the contrary views afterwords. I think a rewrite is in order. Are you volunteering? -R. fiend (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I'd prefer if it was a colaborative effort. I've been in some disputes on Irish-nationalist-type articles before and it's not pretty sometimes. How about we put together our evidence on the talk page and then decide what to write? (and yeah I agree, conventional view first and then contrary)Jdorney (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to go ahead and start writing feel free to; it's the Wiki way. I'll help out a bit, but good writing tends not to be done by committee; one person doing most of the writing and others adding, tweaking, and improving seems to yield pretty good results. If you think you might be adding something controversial you should probably discuss specifics first, but you've already done that and so far no one has balked. If you want to go beyond the immediate reaction of the Dublin public, and venture into the reaction to the execution, and go into the electoral victories of Sinn Fein and what they meant, then you're probably looking at more controversy, and more discussion. -R. fiend (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok so. I'll try to do it over the next week.Jdorney (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

TBH, I prefer the Jdorney way: put proposals on the talk page first. Otherwise, if one of you edits, and I revert, I'm open to the criticism of "why didn't you object when this was raised first?". I favour a re-write but let's be sure that we do have balance first. Scolaire (talk) 07:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, Jdorney briefly summed up what he wants to do, and unless he suddenly goes way off track I don't know how much detail we need. In fact, I prefer the section try to stay a bit on the brief side; this article is already too wordy in some parts, in my opinion. But I guess it would be a good idea for Jdorney to tell us what sources he intends to use for the rewrite.

Oh, as long as you're here (in a sense) Scolaire, can you weigh in on the "Tagged for (lack of) accuracy" section above? If 2loK is right, and the recent edits are BS, I'd like to see it fixed as soon as possible. I don't know much about it. Thanks. -R. fiend (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Rewrite

Ok folks, here's an outline of what I plan to do;

The conventional account of the aftermath of the Rising has always stressed the hostility of Dubliners to the captured rebels. Give egs, Dorothy McArdle, etc

Max Caulfield wrote in the 1960s that the crowds outside Richmond Barracks shouted Shoot the traitors!’, ‘Bayonet the bastards!’ at the rebel prisoners.(Caulfield p355)

Volunteer Robert Holland for example remembered “men, women and children used filthy expressions at us”... we heard all of their names being called out at intervals by the bystanders. My name was called out by some boys and girls I had gone to school with…This was the first time I ever appreciated British troops, as they undoubtedly saved us from being manhandled that evening (Annie Ryan, Witnesses, p135)

This view has since been disputed somewhat. Charles Townshend, writing in 2005, judged the reaction of Dubliners to be more ambivilent than universal hostility. "In many areas the reaction of civilians was puzzlement, they simply had no idea what was going on." Some, especially women, were "actively and viciously hostile to the Rising", while Thomas Johnson, the Labour leader thought there was, "no sign of sympathy for the rebels, but general admiration for their courage and strategy"(Townshend, Easter 1916, p265-268)

Peter Beresford Ellis has cited instances of support for the insurgents (edited version of what we have).

However, Fearghal McGarry, who has made the first thorough examination of witness statemens released in 2003 has cautioned against too radical a revision of the orthodox version. He writes that after the surrender, "the rebels were left in little doubt about the continued anger of many ordinary Dubliners...Rebels were hissed at, pelted with refuse, and denounced as 'murderers' and 'starvers of the people'." But, "some onlookers were cowed rather than hostile and it was obvious to the Volunteers that some of those who stood watching in silence were sympathetic."(McGarry, The Rising, Ireland Easter 1916 p252-256)

Speaking in an interview, (http://www.theirishstory.com/2010/05/05/ferghal-mcgarry-interview/ 8:40-9:55)McGarry has said, "the witness statements show unambiguosly that there was enourmous hostility to the rebels and while there are some accounts of some individuals showing support, by and large there are lots and lots of accounts of people spitting at,assaulting the rebels and so on".

Ok, sin e. Comments welcome. Jdorney (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. As long as the entire section is no longer a synopsis of what Peter Berresford Ellis says I'll probably be happy. Oh, not sure if it's worth including, but I seem to recall someone (Caulfield probably) mentioning that the Rising took place right around the 1 year anniversary of a WWI battle in which many Irish women lost their husbands (2nd Ypres?), so they saw it as a particular kick in the face. -R. fiend (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

R. fiend, get us the ref and we'll stick it in. Scolaire, what say you?Jdorney (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, let's try to remember that the article is about the Rising, not the historiography of the Rising. Just because the current text is of the "Foy and Barton say that Robbins said..." variety doesn't mean that the edited text has to be the same, only slanted a different way. I'm a great believer in the Joe Friday approach: "Just the facts, ma'am". The section can be considerably reduced in size without losing any of its value. Secondly, we need to clarify what exactly is under discussion: the section is currently headed "Reaction of the Irish public"; you have more accurately headed this section on the talk page "Reaction of the Dublin public"; but the description of abuse covers specific places - the places where the rebels were being brought to prison - and specific people - those who turned out to watch. Thirdly, let's be choosy about our sources. I listened to the Ferghal McGarry interview, and there wasn't anything at all new in it - Dublin people didn't like a rising that destroyed their homes, some people changed their view as the week went on, but there was a lot of abuse as the men were marched off at the end of the week. There are enough standard works on the Rising to tell us that. Finally, let's not stick in Ypres. The article is not a repository for "things I seem to remember reading somewhere once". Let's stick to the conventional account.

By the way, what happened to the bit where public opinion changed after the executions, prison sentences and internment camps? I could have sworn that used to be there. Scolaire (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well, if we're being choosy about our sources, McGarry's book is one of the better ones as its the first to exhaustively examine the Bureau of Military History Archives. Likewise Townshend's book is one of the most extensive works on the subject and Ryans contains straightforward accounts from the time from the military history archives. The McGarry interview contains nothing new you say, well it does in that he addresses the very issue we have on here - whether the idea of popular hostility to the rebels should be revised. McGarry found that it should not be and he is in a position to know. We don't have to cite the interview we can just cite his book instead - which although new is an authoritative work.

Secondly, "just the facts", we are not in a position here to make a new judgement, so giving hitorians' summaries of the facts is not 'historiography', it's the best we can do to inform a general reader.

Thirdly, evidence of hostility is not just confined to the immediate aftermath. Three examples; One. At Stephens Green on the first day the Citizen Army commandeered by force the vehicles of passers by to make barricades and shota man who resisted. James Stephens, an eyewitness says, "At that moment the Volunteers were hated". Two. At the GPO, Ernie O'Malley writes that the local women told the Volunteers, "I hope the Tommies come and beat you bloody heads off". Three at the SOuth Dublin Union, the Volunteers had to club and shoot their way thorugh an angry crowd to get into the buildings. And there are many more examples. (btw, I hope you realise that I'm not making a political point here, this is not about imposing a revisionist view on the Rising but on making it reflect the work done on it.)

Re the change in opinion, agree there should be a section on this.

Can you propose an alternative wording if you don't like the above proposed one? Jdorney (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems we're mostly in basic agreement here. I'm all for reducing the section in size, as it seems to have grown unwieldy and could stand to be made more succinct. (I'm impartial to inclusion of Ypres; on one hand it can give some context for the anger of the war widows, and at most would only add a sentence, but I also realize it's not especially significant.) I think a good approach is to start by addressing how the reaction to the rising was mostly negative, at least at first, and we seem to have plenty of sources supporting this (obviously opposition was not unanimous, but was the overriding reaction, not without reason), then briefly go into Ellis and company's view that the negative was overplayed and the positive was stifled (or whatever). We don't need to go into extreme detail here, as this is an encyclopedia article, not a thesis.

As for the public opinion after the executions, it seems to me this is much more of a vexed question, and is obviously closely connected to the forthcoming Sinn Fein electoral victories. It's been a while since I've read about this, but it seems to me the views range from, on one extreme, the executions completely changed public opinion and turned most of the nation into ardent republicans, and on the other end, while the executions were seen as heavy handed, public opinion did not fundamentally change, and Sinn Fein's victory was merely a result of them being the party that was most representative of the public, particularly in regards to partition. Again, this is just off the top of my head right now.

Oh, and Jdorney, I'm familiar with the first 2 examples of gave of public anger during the rising, but I don't recall the incident at the South Dublin Union. What source is that from? -R. fiend (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Re SDU, Fearghal Mc, p143, "C Company's attempts to enter Roe's Distillerry were blocked by an irate mob; 'we were practically attacked by the rabble in Bow Lane, and I will never forget it as long as I live. "Leave down your fucking rifles" they shouted, "and we'll beat the shit out of you", They were very menacing to our lads..." "The women spat at us and the men tried to pull down the barricades" until they clubbed several of them into unconsciousness'. Also at Jacobs, (p142)a Volunteer shot a woman who was about to strike him, "I just remember her face and head disapear and she went down like a sack".

Re the aftermath, my understanding is that post-1917 SF were closely associated with the Rising in the public perception and it was a profitable thing for them to use in campaigns. Also public opinion was effected not only by the executions but also by the arrest of 3,000 activists afterwards and by the British Army's killing of civlians in Dublin during the Rising at Rathmines and North King Street. So to the best of my knowledge there is a consensus that there really was a shift in public perception afterwards. Of course you wold also have to mention things like conscription and partition. Jdorney (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, yes, conscription was absolutely a factor. Am I remembering wrong or did SF initially largely run on an anti-conscription platform? -R. fiend (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about that, but they certainly headed the anti-conscription campaign, they probably ran on that platfrom in by-elections of 1917 but by the general election of 1918 the war was over and it was no longer a factor.Jdorney (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to the earlier elections. Obviously by the 1918 general election it wasn't a factor (except perhaps in that it earned them some populist credibility). -R. fiend (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh absolutely. It was probably the single biggest factor in them burying the IPP, who were too closely identified with support for the war effort. But I wouldn't underestimate the role of the Risng either. It's aftermath produced a generation of young, zealous activists, Ernie O'Malley, Eoin O'Duffy, Liam Lynch etc etc. Jdorney (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's get back on track here. Conscription and the 1918 elections are a whole 'nother topic and we don't need to get into that right now. Re "giving historians' summaries of the facts is not 'historiography'": giving summaries is exactly what I proposed. Giving details of historians' criticism of other historians is historiography, and it's what we don't need. Re the McGarry book, I'm not disputing it as a reliable source, it was specifically the radio interview I was talking about. What I would propose to write is something brief and to the point, like this:

• The rebels encountered much hostility from Dubliners, and prisoners were subject to both verbal and physical abuse as they were taken to the barracks (McGarry, Foy and Barton, or Townshend). On the other hand there was a degree of admiration, and even sympathy, in certain sections of the populace (Ellis, Townshend). However, the number and swiftness of the executions, combined with the arrests and deportations and revelations about the British Army's killing of civilians in Rathmines and North King Street, led to a surge of support for the rebels; freed internees returning from England received a hero’s welcome on their arrival in Ireland (pick your source).

I think that's a fair summary of what the historians say, and succeeds in presenting a neutral point of view without the tedious details about points of disagreement between historians. From the point of view of informing the reader about the Rising, I don't feel that anything more is necessary. Scolaire (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

A not unreasonable summary. I'd suggest, however, that the third clause of the third sentence should read "led to a surge of retrospective support for the rebels". Mooretwin (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

An interesting suggestion. My reading of history, though, is that the surge of support was for the living, breathing rebels and for the physical force tradition, as evidenced by the crowds that welcomed them home from internment. There was also a retrospective veneration of the dead leaders, but that is a part of "Legacy" rather than "Aftermath". Scolaire (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What limited input i can add or cooroborate to this is that sympathy for the rebels as far as i understand from Irish history books only started due to the executions - before that the captured rebels were jeered by the local population Northern Star ^(talk) 10:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, how about "retrospective surge of support for the rebels' actions". Is that clearer? Those who did not support their actions at the time, began to support their actions retrospectively, as a result of the executions, etc. Mooretwin (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

But isn't that a tautology? A "surge" (i.e. increase) of support after the event is necessarily retrospective. Scolaire (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily a tautology because it is possible for retrospective support (support after the event) to surge. But I see what you mean. Mooretwin (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Would "The result of the executions lead to a surge in support for the rebels and their actions" do? Northern Star ^(talk) 21:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Now THAT's a tautology ... the RESULT of the executions LED TO a surge in support! Mooretwin (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops i meant led. Would "the executions resulted in a surge in support" escape claims of tautology? Northern Star ^(talk) 22:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It would. Mooretwin (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

In that respect would "the executions resulted in a surge of support for the rebels and their actions" do for the rewrite? Northern Star ^(talk) 22:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Splitting hairs there gentlemen I think. Scolaire, broadly agree with your outline but would also include something on the IPP and the Catholic Church's stances. Both of these institutions condemned the Risng but also the executions and arrests afterwards, which showed the ambivilence that existed even in the most conservative elements of Irish nationalism towards the rebellion. Jdorney (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. We seem to have a consensus so you may as well go ahead and do it. Scolaire (talk) 06:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do it as soon as I can. Jdorney (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, done. Jdorney (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks pretty good to me. -R. fiend (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

New Section needed

Now that we've re-doe the "reaction" section (though I'll wait for rections before closing that subject), we need a section on the longer term reaction - ie the swing behind support for the rebels, the reaction to the executions and arrests.

I think this should have it's own section as it's different from the immediate reaction to the Rising on the ground in Dublin.

Or should there be a para on this in the reactions section?

Jdorney (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The re-write is a huge improvement on what was there before, and it pretty well halved the size - although Rashers Tierney's edit has increased it again a bit. However, I still feel it is too long and too detailed. There is a bit of a fad at the moment on WP for blockquotes. I don't really believe that there is a need for any of the quotes that are in this section at the moment. For instance, "Canadian journalist Frederick McKenzie found that there was a great deal of sympathy for the rebels in the poorer parts of the city, particularly after the surrender" would be perfectly adequate. Better still, "There was a great deal of sympathy for the rebels in the poorer parts of the city, particularly after the surrender.<ref>Frederick Arthur MacKenzie, The Irish Rebellion: What happened and Why, cited in The Impact of the 1916 Rising: Among the Nations...</ref>". Just the facts, ma'am.

The new section heading, "Reaction of the Dublin public during Easter Week" is not appropriate for a subsection of "Aftermath". The specific incidents of confrontation and the shooting of civilians on Easter Monday should be dealt with elsewhere in the article. Rough behaviour and the shooting of civilians can then be briefly mentioned here as one of the reasons for public hostility, along with destruction of property and disruption of daily life.

Finally, to answer your question, there shouldn't be a new section for the change in public opinion. There should be a single section, entitled simply "Public reaction", with one paragraph of about 150 words summarising the current version of the immediate reaction in Dublin, and one paragraph of similar length on the longer-term reaction of the Irish public to British actions. Scolaire (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The section has been greatly improved and I agree that the current title is a little 'off'. However, rather than move it I suggest renaming it to 'Contemporary reactions of Dublin residents'. On the issue of blockquotes, this is a useful way to give a voice to the specific subject of this section without the fog of interpretation. Primary sources in general should be be included with caution, but this is an occasion when first hand observations allow appreciation of an extraordinary social/political change over a short period of time. The quotes included indicate a much more nuanced and conflicted contemporary view than the simplistic narrative of 'all changed utterly' only subsequent to the executions, (undoubtedly these resulted in a vociferous public backlash through newspapers etc. against the status quo). Presentation here could do with some beautifying but I don't agree that it is still too long. RashersTierney (talk) 12:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Scolaire, I feel I've done my bit and won't be re-writing this section agin. But I too like brevity, and your suggestions make sense, so feel free to edit further. Rashers, that's a good quote but it is a little wordy and off the point. Scolaire makes a good point re the need for brevity and clarity over detail. Could the quote be summarised and the text put into footnotes? (eg. as was done with the quotes from O'Malley) Jdorney (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of text in the footnotes at all. To my mind direct quotes are for books, not for encyclopaedia articles and definitely not for footnotes. Looking back at the last seven days of featured articles, only Tōru Takemitsu has blockquotes in the body of the article - and they are quotes from the subject himself - and only Jesus College Boat Club (Oxford) has a (single, brief) quote in the footnotes. I probably will have a go at editing the section, only not on a Sunday evening. Scolaire (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually I like that suggestion, summarise all the quotes, so I'm going to have one last go. Jdorney (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I like that much better. Scolaire (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

More re-writes are needed

The Easter Monday section is far, far too detailed, with micro accounts of the first day, while the following section is not detailed enough.

The same goes for the 'Rising outside of Dublin' section which has a big ugly tag on it for good measure.

These three sections (Easter Monday, Tusday to Saturday and Outside Dublin) also need to be re-written imo. Jdorney (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that One Night in Hackney (aka 2 lines of K) has said that he is intending to re-write the whole article (see here), which has left the rest of us reluctant to do any major editing in the meantime. Correspondence on my talk page in the last week indicates that he is still working on it, but we have no expected completion date and no sandbox where we might monitor progress. But I agree with all you say, and I may make a start in a few weeks time if nothing is forthcoming before that. Scolaire (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Getting impatient here. Any sign of that re-write? Jdorney (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I say go ahead and tackle it, if that's what you'd like to do. I've grown old waiting for edits to certain articles that I was assured were imminent. It's a wiki, so there should be no problem with editing by any interested and knowledgeable party. Hopefully Hackney, Scolaire, and others who have been active on this page will contribute as well. I, for one, agree at least on the overly detailed synopsis of Monday. Trying to read the section in the mindset of a theoretical reader who is reading about this event for the first time, it does seem to throw around a lot of proper nouns that presumably would mean nothing to the average person, and which often lack much context. This can lead to the significant players getting mixed in with the minor figures, leading to potential confusion and noun overload. That's my opinion anyway.

While we're on the subject, specifically regarding the Rising Outside Dublin section, no one seems to have addressed the points made in the "Tagged for (lack of) accuracy" section above. Anyone care to weigh in on that? -R. fiend (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I still don't know what the issues are, and it looks like nobody else does either. You asked a number of questions that went unanswered. I'd say if you're going to re-write, just re-write; use your own sources, make it accurate and verifiable, and don't worry about four-month-old controversies. Scolaire (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no desire to rewrite the Rising outside Dublin section; as I said I really know little about it. The issue seems to be its accuracy which takes the form of a dispute between two editors, neither of whom seem to want to comment. Perhaps I should remove the accuracy tag, since the edits are cited and no contradicting facts have been presented?

As for the table idea, I think it's pretty good, though we should still keep a brief summary of deployment. I'm not good at tables either; every time I've needed one I just copy/pasted someone else's and changed the information within. One of us could probably easily do that here. -R. fiend (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

A thought has occurred to me about Easter Monday. A lot of that section is taken up with the deployment of Republican forces. Could that be replaced by a table? The table headings could be: Army (i.e. Volunteers or Citizen Army); Battalion or Company; Senior officer (where the names could be prefaced with Commandant or Captain); and Position. The map could be moved up the page to show the positions. The relevant positions would be (Volunteer unless otherwise stated): 1st Battalion - Four Courts; D Coy., 1st Batt. - Mendicity Institute; 2nd Batt. - Jacob's; 3rd Batt. - Boland's; 4th Batt. - Sth Dublin Union; Citizen Army (main) - Stephen's Green; Citizen Army (detachment) - City Hall; E Coy., ? Batt. - GPO.

Only trouble is, I am hopeless at making tables! Does either of you (or anybody else reading this) have the skills and the interest to do it? Scolaire (talk) 09:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Scolaire, I'll have look at tables. Sounds like a good idea. Jdorney (talk) 09:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite of Easter Monday section done. Comments welcome. I moved the original to its own article, as I felt it was too long and detailed for a section. Have also re-written the 'rising outside dublin' section. Nex stop, refing up and expanding the 'tuesday to saturday' section. Jdorney (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look when I have time, but I'm not sure a separate article on Easter Monday is the best way to go. Some of the detail might be too excessive whether in its own article or its parent, but moreover I'm not convinced that's the best way to break out the information. Maybe an article covering the military forces and combat in general, which could also cover events of the rest of the week in details beyond what this article should hold? To me, since Monday was not really a separate battle in most cases, division by subject rather than chronology might work better. As I said, I'll examine it more and ask for other opinions. -R. fiend (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I kinda agree with R. fiend. I'm flattered that my deathless prose is now an article of its own, but I honestly expected nothing more than the kind of editing down that Jdorney has kindly done. Maybe, short-term, the best thing would be to move the new article to Talk:Easter Rising/First Day of the Easter Rising. The content would be there, then, and when this article finally starts to look like a good article, we could discuss what, if anything, is to be done with it.

Easter Monday is now of a decent length and well referenced. Format-wise, I feel there are too many short paragraphs, and taking out half the line breaks would make it flow much better.

I haven't really examined the Rising Outside Dublin, but I assume you have dealt with the disputed content so well done on that. Scolaire (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I've re-written three sections now, Easter Monday, Tuesday to Saturday (I think this section should have a better title btw, how about 'Battle in Dublin'?) and the Rising outside Dublin. People are welcome to make any changes they feel are necessary but can they flag them here first? Thanks. Jdorney (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"Tuesday to Saturday" was what was left of the original narrative after I edited it down and expanded Easter Monday. In my youth and enthusiasm I was going to re-write it as five sections: Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Then I realised I had made Monday far too long, and that took all the wind out of my sails. The rest is history, as they say, at least until this week. I would still ideally like to have a section for each day, of roughly equal length, using the established sources to show the highlights of each day, while at the same time showing the progression from the initial seizure of the posts to the final surrender. Will I manage to do it myself? Who knows, it could still happen. Kudos to yorself, though, for making the article readable again. Scolaire (talk) 10:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I think we could safely consider this section "resolved", and open any further discussion under a new heading. I now propose to do just that. Scolaire (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

On the day by day thing, I've been meaning to complete this User:Jdorney/Timeline of the Easter Rising

Could do the job maybe? Jdorney (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, I was thinking more on the lines of:

• Tuesday "...Lowe...arrived from the Curragh Camp in the early hours of Tuesday 25 April. City Hall was taken from the rebel unit that had attacked Dublin Castle on Tuesday morning...the rebel position at St Stephen's Green, held by the Citizen Army under Michael Mallin, was made untenable after the British placed snipers and machine guns in the Shelbourne Hotel and surrounding buildings. As a result, Mallin's men retreated to the Royal College of Surgeons building..."
• Wednesday "...Reinforcements were sent to Dublin from England, and disembarked at Kingstown...Heavy fighting occurred at the rebel-held positions around the Grand Canal as these troops advanced towards Dublin. The Sherwood Foresters were repeatedly caught in a cross-fire trying to cross the canal at Mount Street. Seventeen Volunteers were able to severely disrupt the British advance..."
• Thursday "at North King Street, behind the Four Courts...the British...tried to take a well-barricaded rebel position. By the time of the surrender, the South Staffordshire Regiment under Colonel Taylor had advanced only 150 yeards down the street at a cost of 11 dead and 28 wounded. The enraged troops broke into the houses along the street..."

And so on. It's not consistent with Hackney's "Foy and Barton" approach, but then again, neither is the current version. Scolaire (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well obviously the way I wrote it, more like an overview than a chronology, is what I'd prefer, but I'll go along with the consensus.Jdorney (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Chronology and overview are not incompatible. As currently written, it's in chronological order anyway. But this is just for discussion. There's no need to change anything now, and no doubt things will be changed in the future anyway. It's the nature of the beast. Scolaire (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed indeed. Jdorney (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

'90th Anniversary of the 1916 Rising'

It is nearly five years since the 90th anniversary celebrations. Were they really that memorable? Does such a detailed description add anything to an article on the Rising itself? I propose that we add a single, very brief sentence to the end of the Legacy section ("The 90th anniversary was celebrated with military parade in Dublin on Easter Sunday, 2006, with the President of Ireland, the Taoiseach and the Lord Mayor of Dublin in attendance"), and delete this entire section. Scolaire (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but the history of the commemoration of the Rising, particularly in the 20s and 30s and on the 50th anniversary in 1966 is significant in terms of building the nationalist identity of the southern state, and in the north mobilising people of republican views against that state. Perhaps we could have a more wide-ranging para about that? The 2006 element would be a small addendum. Hold on, I see we actually have this already! Jdorney (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! And 1966, which has had at least one book written about it, gets a cursory mention, while 2006 gets equal coverage in Legacy plus a section of its own. Scolaire (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree, maybe a bit more on 1966 and get rid of the 2006 stuff bar a mention. Jdorney (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The rising was pro-German

It is absolutely essential the article mentions the fact that the proclamation praised the Germans as the rebels' "gallant allies", because this proves the uprising was treasonable. (92.12.28.15 (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC))

So why was only Casement convicted of treason? Most sources see the various publications issues by Pearse and co during the Rising as fiction anyway. The text you added was not even close to being neutral either. O Fenian (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Well they didn't want to execute de Valera because he was a US citizen. Martin Gilbert's book is certainly a reliable source and in any case the fact that the proclamation praised the Germans as their allies needs to be mentioned. (92.11.115.198 (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC))

What does de Valera have to do with anything? Casement was the only person charged with treason. I notice the flowery quote does not mention that hundreds of thousands of Irishmen refused to fight in a foreign war? O Fenian (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

De Valera has everything to do with it, since he was one of the leaders of the uprising. The fact that some Irish tried to avoid opposing the enemy does not change the fact that the Easter Rising was openly pro-German. (92.11.115.198 (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC))

Would that be the same de Valera you claimed was pro-Hitler? O Fenian (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh? (92.11.115.198 (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC))

Mentioning Martin Gilbert is specious, since he is actually directly quoting a single "historian" - Robert Kee. Kee's quote is "It referred to 'gallant Allies in Europe' who were supporting Ireland, thereby blandly dismissing the fact that the flower of Ireland's manhood had been fighting those allies in Europe for the past twenty months". That is not an objective quote, it is flowery, and ignores that far more Irishmen were not willing to fight a foreign war. Pearse expected the Germans to land an expeditionary force to aid the Rising, the "allies" did nothing more than supply arms, which were either pre-war (Howth gun-running) or failed to arrive. The quote of "gallant allies" from a primary source does not accurately detail the facts on the ground, and neither does the biased quote. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence that any person was charged with treason other than Casement, despite your claims to the contrary. O Fenian (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether some Irishmen were unwilling to defend themselves from the enemy is irrelevant to the fact that the uprising was vocally pro-German. That is why de Valera had to keep IRA terrorists imprisoned during World War II, since any attack in the north could have been viewed as siding with the Germans and would have given Churchill the excuse he needed to overrun all of the Irish Free State. (92.11.115.198 (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC))

Sources? O Fenian (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You jump from a specious accusation that the Rising was pro-German to an argument about De Valera and World War II. You cannot even seem to remember what you are talking about. My suspicion is that your intention is disruption and that continuing this discussion is a waste of everyone's time. Besides, the Germans never invaded Ireland, never outlawed the people's religion, never murdered Irishmen and women in their homes, did not burn down Cork City. The Brits did all that. So, how were the Germans the enemies of the Irish? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's try to keep this from becoming a political argument and just take a look at the facts. The Proclamation did refer to "gallant allies in Europe" without mentioning Germany by name, but it's pretty clear who they are referring to. How significant this is is subject to debate, but should be completely dismissed without discussion. Also, the rebels did try to get guns and other aid from Germany; the fact that the British were able to prevent isn't relevant to their intent, and does not exonerate them. Comparing those that faced a Court Martial with Casement, who faced a criminal trial, might not be completely valid. I don't know exactly how courts martial in Britain work, so maybe someone with more expertise on this can give input. What exactly were the others charged with? A quick glance through a few books didn't seem to give specifics. Isn't taking up arms against the government a pretty good working definition of treason? I agree that Valera and WWII has nothing to do with this and we should stick to the topic at hand. What do other people have to say about this? R. fiend (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

My point, as above, is that while Proclamation may refer to "gallant Allies" Pearse and Connolly may have had a slightly different opinion due to the non-arrival of the expeditionary force. The German aid is mentioned earlier in the article, so I do not see the benefit in quoting a couple of words from the Proclamation for reasons which are now unknown, since the insinuation attached to those words was not added back at the same time. I also recall someone's court martial, which one currently escapes me but I can check later if needed. They totally denied the allegation that they were aiding Germany, their intent was not pro-German but pro-Ireland. O Fenian (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing that the purpose of the Rising was to aid Germany, but that isn't relevant. The US didn't fight WWII to aid the Soviet Union, but they were still allies. If this is simply a question of inclusion of a sentence about the proclamation in the section on Easter Monday then fair enough. It looks out of place to me, but it should be discussed on its merits, and shouldn't devolve into an argument about who burned down Cork City or what Dev did during World War II. If some editors think the Germany link is being glossed over and treason should be mentioned directly then that should be discussed as well. -R. fiend (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That is half the problem, the IP editor seemingly believes a flowery quote from Kee makes it treason. O Fenian (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think their actions make it treason. Are we arguing it isn't? I don't care much. I don't have a horse in this race and I think the whole notion of treason is stupid, but I think rebelling against the government and conspiring with an enemy to do so fits the bill pretty well. Anyway, we're getting off topic again, I guess. The questionable edit is reverted, so I guess we can let the matter rest unless something further is brought up (which wouldn't surprise me). -R. fiend (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Easter Rising during World War I was clearly just as treasonable as the rebellion of 1798 during the Napoleonic Wars. The "gallant allies" quotation absolutely needs to be in the article. (92.11.242.106 (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC))