Jump to content

Talk:Easter Rising

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by McStavish (talk | contribs) at 19:06, 23 June 2018 (→‎1918 General Election: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kyehen (article contribs).

"Zombie"

"Zombie" is a song about the Northern Ireland Troubles, written in response to the Warrington bombing. It is mentioned, appropriately, in the Warrington bombing article and The Troubles in popular culture. But the fact that it has the line "It's the same old theme since nineteen-sixteen" is not sufficient to put it in the Popular Culture section of this article. That section of this article is for notable songs, books, films etc. that deal in depth with the subject of the article, not for songs that "mention" it without actually mentioning it. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We've also had people adding a popular Irish punkabilly rock band based out of Rochester, NY and a Finn Bálor wrestling move. These things do not improve the article. Scolaire (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously whoever put it in thought so and to a degree I agree, though with a reword to highlight that the line is referencing the Rising and using it in a negative manner (is negative stuff allowed on this article out of curiousity?) to denounce the mindset of republicans during the Troubles and indeed afterwards who all use the Rising as justification for their actions. In that regard the Rising is a central tenant of the song not just a mention. Mabuska (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although I corrected the entry, I tend to agree that its inclusion is not relevant to the article. Denisarona (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The lyrics just mention 1916. It is not about 1916 or the Easter Rising. So to my opinion inclusion is irrelevant. The Banner talk 11:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think the song is refering to then?Apollo The Logician (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is well known what it means with even Dolores stating it in interviews. To say otherwise is simply trying to ignore the truth. The article of the song also makes reference to it. As stated, it is a central tenant and part of the topic of the song. Unless of course you're stating that 1916 doesn't stand as the main inspiration for modern republicanism? If not then what was all that pomp about the 100th anniversary of it last year? Mabuska (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a central tenant [sic] of the song. It is a line from the song. Yes of course, it means that "the Irish fight for independence that seems to last forever" has been going on since [the Rising of] 1916, but it's still just a line – a "mention" of the Rising without actually mentioning it. It doesn't deal with the Rising in any detail, and so it doesn't belong in the Rising article. Scolaire (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with it being in the article.Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that the Zombie reference has appeared and disappeared on this page before. I added the reference because that reference was the way I became aware of the Easter Rising in the first place, and given the song's popularity (and general ignorance about history) I would not be surprised were such a common occurrence. 45.56.62.133 (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but that's like me saying that I became aware of Tchaikovsky through hearing the very popular Roll Over Beethoven, so Chuck Berry's song ought to get a mention in the Tchaikovsky article. I understand your reason for doing it, but the logic is faulty. Scolaire (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Scolaire a single reference in the song does not warrant mentioning in this article. Finnegas (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The song uses the Easter rising as the central reason for the actions the song is hitting out at Mabuska (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just as "Roll Over Beethoven" uses Tchaikovsky to represent the music the song is hitting out at. And please stop using that word "central". There's nothing central about it; it's a passing mention. Scolaire (talk) 10:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide

Disruption by sock of banned User:HarveyCarter. --Scolaire (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There needs to be discussion about whether the British actions during and after the uprising could be considered genocidal. (2A00:23C4:638D:D500:1B0:E245:524F:4D29 (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Find a citation from a reliable source that uses that language and there might be a case to discuss it. Otherwise please don't waste other editors time ----Snowded TALK 12:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Easter Rising. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Republic vs. British Empire

I think it is important to state in the infobox that this was a conflict between the Irish Republic and the British Empire. The participants were fighting with a clear goal and a clear banner in mind; the Irish Republic. Just calling them "rebel forces" makes it look like a directionless or random skirmish. The whole point was they had Proclaimed an Irish Republic and taken up arms to defend it.

On the question of the British Empire as a combatant, Britain at the time was an Empire and the politically correct modern parlance about "the United Kingdom" would not have been widespread then. The Irish Republican forces named their enemy as the British Empire and the British Imperialists wouldn't have, at the time, blushed about the fact that they were an Empire, either. To give a parallel, on the Jewish–Roman wars article, we mention the Roman Empire as a participant.... doesn't mean to say every single Roman legion was in Palestine. Claíomh Solais (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Republicans were seeking independence from the United Kingdom. If you wish to persue this argument I'd suggest providing academic, verifiable, and reliable sourcing that states that it was the BE not the UK that was involved against the rebels. Also using IR gives undue weight and acceptance to a state that was not universally recognised or even in real existence with proper powers. Mabuska (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When this article was written in the 2000s (and especially the rewrite that I was part of in 2007–08) it was based on the standard works on the Rising: Charles Townshend, Foy and Barton, Max Caulfield. Fearghal McGarry's 2010 book was extensively cited later, especially in the major revision that was done mostly by Asarlaí in March–April 2016. The article uses the terminology that those authors use, and they talk in terms of rebels and British forces, not The Irish Republic and The British Empire. I don't disagree that the Rising was in support of an Irish Republic, or that they saw themselves as taking on the British Empire or that the British saw themselves as defending the Empire, but an encyclopaedia is not for reflecting the views of its writers, it is for summarising the way the subject is discussed in the most authoritative sources. And the infobox shouldn't be at odds with the article. The article uses "rebels" or "rebellion" 133 times! And "British forces", "British troops", "British soldiers" or just "the British" is used for the opposing forces. Incidentally, I don't agree with adding this blockquote in the middle of the "Arrests and Executions" section. It has the appearance of being added just to justify the use of "British Empire" and "Irish Republic" in the infobox. The section is for the facts of the arrests and executions, not for stirring speeches. If you're going to start quoting Connolly, then why not also John Maxwell or H.H. Asquith? Scolaire (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A point of language: Ireland was an integral part of the UK and was well represented in Parliament. The UK also ruled the British Empire, but Ireland before 1922 was not part of the Empire (unlike Canada or India or Australia, which had zero members of Parliament). Rjensen (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maxwell is already quoted in the arrests and executions section. Including his view that people physically resisting a foreign invasion are guilty of "cold blooded murder." Given that Connolly was one of the main leaders of the Rising, who was both arrested and executed, a quote from his Last Statement to the Field General Courts-Martial a few days beforehand, explaining what the purpose of the Rising was from the Republican side and their justification would seem applicable here. Otherwise it is just British people who are quoted there.
The problem with just saying "British forces", "British troops", etc, as their opponent, is that it removes the governmental aspect. The British Army is entirely subordinate to the British government. We mention Ivor Guest ("Viscount Wimborne" if you want to humour pretentious titles the Normans pass out among themselves) in the infobox, but his role was entirely political. He was not a serving member of the British Army or the RIC at the time, but worked for the British state/government/empire in a political capacity, when Asquith sent him over from London to govern Ireland for Britain as the "Lord Lieutenant of Ireland".
I think this is key, the Irish republicans were not like anarchists or brigands, just carrying out directionless violent acts. So the political aspect of 1916 needs to be further highlighted as a matter of neutrality. The accumulated militant groups regarded themselves as the armed forces of a state in formation; the Irish Republic. Even if that state wasn't recognised internationally at the time in 1916, it subsequently has been, admittedly in a bastardised form, even by the British who they were fighting against (Anglo-Irish Treaty). Claíomh Solais (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To put it another way: we have the Proclamation of the Republic, but we don't have a formal declaration of war by the provisional government of the Irish Republic on the British Empire, nor a declaration of war by the government of George V on the Irish Republic. To the Irish, it was an uprising; to the British, it was a rebellion. Nobody then or since characterised it as a war between two states, let alone between a state and an empire. Having the infobox show the belligerents as the Republic and the Empire would be misleading.
I first learned about the Rising in school in the 1960s, and in the 50–odd years since I have never seen anybody express the view that the rebels were "like anarchists or brigands" (excepting the British tabloids and the likes of Kevin Myers, of course). The standard books on the Rising certainly don't, so that's a straw man. You're trying to correct a misconception that doesn't exist. What's more, you're trying to do it through the infobox, which is the wrong way to change the balance of articles even if they need changed.
As regards "Maxwell is already quoted", he doesn't have a 100-word blockquote. The purpose of the Rising from the Republican side, and their justification of it, has been well presented already in the article. There might be a point in a short factual sentence saying that all of the leaders made statements justifying their actions (though I don't think there is), but the Connolly blockquote is undue emphasis, and flag-waving to boot. Scolaire (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I learned at my Dutch secondary school was that of a rising by Irish rebels against the British Army. No British Empire, no Irish Republic. The Banner talk 23:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that despite suggesting they provide reliable and verifiable academic evidence for their view, none was provided in their response. I also think it is stretching feasibility to suggest that the Anglo-Irish Treaty gave a bastardised form of acceptance to the self-declared IR. Indeed its Wiki article opening paragraph appears misleading and is it not contradictory for a self-declared republic to sign a treaty that made it essentially dominion of an empire headed by a monarchy? A republic headed by a monarch? Seriously? Mabuska (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"is it not contradictory for a self-declared republic to sign a treaty that made it essentially dominion of an empire headed by a monarchy? A republic headed by a monarch? Seriously?"
Well, yes, which is why the Irish Civil War happened. The Anglo-Irish Treaty was negotiated on the Irish side by the same group who organised the Easter Rising and founded the Irish Republic, however; the leadership of the Irish Republican Brotherhood. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We covered it all in school. And there was me thinking it was because of a certain six counties not being included... Mabuska (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1918 General Election

The General Election in December 1918 was held throughout the UK, and resulted in a landslide victory for the coalition government led by David Lloyd George, with the Conservative Party winning most seats. It is misleading to say Sinn Fein won a landslide victory because the election was not only in Ireland. (McStavish (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Easter_Rising&oldid=847219611"