Talk:Easter Rising

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).

Libau and Aud

I attempted to resolve the issue of pipelinking SS Libau by simply calling it by its name and providing a ref, but this in itself presents a problem, because the ship is thereafter called the Aud, not only in this article but in histories of the Rising generally. A well-meaning editor might easily come along and change all instances of Aud to Libau. I am considering hiding it again, as "the German Navy dispatched [[SS Libau|a ship]] for [[County Kerry]], disguised as the Norwegian ship Aud". Thoughts, SquisherDa, Guliolopez or anybody else? Scolaire (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Good catch! But I think Guliolopez is right to decry Easter-egg solutions. I’ve seen other articles solve nomenclature problems by adding a bracketed note. How about (eg) text as follows:

.. [the German Navy] dispatched a ship disguised as the Norwegian [ Collier (ship) |collier] Aud for County Kerry. (The ship was the [SS Libau], but is usually referenced as the Aud in the literature and generally, and in the rest of this article.)

? (The repetition of “.. ship .. ship .. (The ship ..” would be unattractive, so I’ve thrown in the detail tht the Aud was a collier.)

- SquisherDa (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Personally I thought this version was fine. But, if we think that six linked words is too many, then something like the below would work. Certainly, as I think we are all agreed, linking just the word "Aud" or just the word "disguised" is a problem. And, personally, I would avoid referencing the Libau directly in the text (or indeed linking to the "real" Aud). As the vessel in question here is more commonly known under its "fake name". And mentioning both/all might be confusing. Anyway, the following would get my vote:

Masquerading as the Aud, an existing Norwegian ship, it was loaded with 20,000 rifles...

(I like "masquerading", over "disguised", as it implies an impersonation of something specific, rather than a more generic camouflage).

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I like Ur version, Guliolopez. If only cos it’s less words (on a point tht’s really only a digression, for most readers). And with Ur reasons as stated. I can’t see tht a six- (or four-)word link is an issue (and if it hints to the reader tht the text is skirting an awkward detail, that’s good, right?!)

(Except - a quibble - I’ve an idea tht there may be a context of maritime law in which /disguised/ is the right word.)

- SquisherDa (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I would still oppose pipelinking the Libau to any word or words other than, maybe, "a ship". I like SquisherDa's solution better, but I would put the added text as a footnote, rather than in parentheses, thus:

On 9 April, the [[Imperial German Navy|German Navy]] dispatched a ship for [[County Kerry]], disguised as the Norwegian ship ''Aud''.<ref group=a>The ship was the ''[[SS Libau]]'', but is usually referred to as the ''Aud'' in the literature.</ref><ref>Caulfield, Max, p. 29</ref> It was loaded with 20,000 rifles...

This would mean creating separate "Notes" and "References" sections at the end, with the new Notes section saying {{reflist|group=a}}. Scolaire (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Photo gallery

I think the photo gallery added by CeltBrowne in this edit is worth discussing. Having said that, I'm not really fond of it for a number of reasons. One, where CeltBrowne thinks it "helps break up the page", I think it unnecessarily and rather jarringly breaks up the page. Two, the Basque article that he took it from has relatively few images in it, while this one already has too many images (do we really need a photo of two soldiers paddling in a small river?). Three, the seven Signatories (seven of the 16 in the gallery) are already in a composite image further up the article. However, I would not be bothered if a consensus emerged to restore the gallery. Scolaire (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, not a fan. It's a bit WP:MEMORIAL. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I removed it. Based on CeltBrowne's own suggestion that it might be removed if it was objectionable. And for the reasons noted already above. That we shouldn't use images or galleries in place of text. That ideally we wouldn't use too many galleries regardless. That we already have a single image (a relatively contemporary one rather than a re-imagining) which communicates much the same thing. That content that seeks to 'memorialise' (rather than to inform) should be avoided. And that it rather jarringly broke-up that section (and indeed the entire article) in a way that was unnecessary. I, personally, wouldn't be in favour of restoring it. I don't see how it aligns with the relevant guidelines on this EN Wikipedia project. (I cannot speak for the EU Wikipedia project from which it came). Guliolopez (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Not part of World War 1

It happened during the war, but was not part of it. Do any reliable references claim different? FDW777 (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Yup. Fighting the Great War: A Global History by Michael S. Neiberg. (2005). Reputable source and the book is given out at my college. Mentions it as part of the turbulent rumblings caused by the war. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC) Specifically pages 293-297. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Page 293, Neiberg says the "third plank" of German strategy in 1916 was to incite rebellion in Ireland. Matches German intelligence ops during the time. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a reference that disproves your point. "turbulent rumblings caused by the war" =/= part of the war. FDW777 (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

What? He says the Germans supported the rebellion. And he does say it was part of the war. Maybe I paraphrased wrong, he mentions it as part of German strategy to hurt the British. Read the source before you make comments like that. If you don't reply reasonably, I'll make the edit again. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the Easter Rising should be labeled as part of the Great War. It occurred during the height of the fighting, included some German support, and was planned to take advantage of the UK's occupation with the larger war. This would make it part of the war. The recap, a rebellion could have happened if there was no great war, but the rebellion was significantly influenced by the war and should thus be counted as part of it. This also follows the logic of other Wikipedia articles that include various rebellions or uprisings as part of a larger war. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

References? FDW777 (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

That fact that the uprising happened during World War 1 does not make it part of World War 1. The process towards the uprising and the Irish War of Independence started long before World War 1. The Banner talk 02:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I understand that. There was a Kru rebellion in Liberia during WWI but it wasn't part of the war. I get it stop repeating that. Can you at least comment on the fact and have a dialogue with the reputable source I provided that the uprising received German support and was part of a German destabilization strategy. Read my above comment. The rebellion had a long history before it occurred, but it was significantly influenced by the Great War, enough so to be considered part of it by historians, like the one above. I will HAVE to revert again if you can't respond to this point.98.221.136.220 (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

If you HAVE to revert you will be blocked either for edit warring or for breaching the 1RR-rule. So your choice...

And by the way: your source does not prove your point. The uprising was not planned by Germany or England as a military operation. The Banner talk 03:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I never argued this was originally Germany's plan. I said it received German support and aid during the war, thus warranting its inclusion. Did you even check my source? And I meant that I will revert again if no coherent reply is given because my argument is logically sound, not cuz I want to get banned lol. All I'm asking for is an explanation why aid and support from one of the belligerents of the war, and the fact that the immediate beginning of the revolt was chosen to put pressure on the UK during the war, is not enough to make this part of WW1. As an example, a revolt occurred in Vietnam during WW1. I don't consider it part of the war because it received no foreign aid. Hope this clarifies things. My point is, if the rebellion received aid and support from a belligerent, and such aid was given to complicate the enemy's war effort, then it must be included as part of the war. What's your response to this?

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/easter_rising_great_britain_and_ireland Here is a source from the WW1 online encyclopedia that argues that the rising was part of the war. I have sufficient reason to revert at this point (reliable sources, logical argument). If no reply is made in the following days, I will edit the page again. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC) 98.221.136.220 (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that Germany's motivations in supplying arms (which never even reached the rebels, so I don't know where you are saying "it received German support and aid during the war") were motivated by the war. But that doesn't mean the rebels shared the same motivation, since they famously said "We Serve Neither King nor Kaiser". The staging of the rising occurred during the war for the simple reason that England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity. I've read the whole of the WW1 online encyclopedia article you linked to and can't see a phrase that supports your claim, what is the phrase? Similiarly what is the exact phrase used by Neiberg, since I can't see anything he says that actually supports your edit. FDW777 (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

My problem would be with saying that the Rising was part of a German destabilization strategy. The Germans had little or no interest in Ireland. They received the rebel envoys, allowed them to try and recruit an Irish brigade from British Army POWs (which failed), gave them a small amount of second-rate rifles and ammunition (which were intercepted and lost), made a vague promise of recognition, and sent them home again. That is not strategy. Scolaire (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I'll take your criticisms into consideration. To counter, however: FDW777, you wanted phrases from the source that support my position. In the lead: "[The essay] argues that the origins, conduct, impact and aftermath of the insurrection are best understood within the wider context of the First World War." and under the Rationale and Ideology section: "The Great War provided the rationale – and pretext – for the Rising. As early as September 1914 its outbreak had allowed the militants within the IRB to persuade the hesitant Supreme Council IRB leadership to commit the organisation to rebellion despite unpropitious circumstances. Their arguments were entirely premised on the context provided by the war: a distracted Britain, a powerful ally and the promise from Germany of weapons, military assistance and diplomatic support. Even defeat, always the most likely outcome, might be transformed into political triumph when – as the rebels tended to assume – Germany won the war. Whether the insurrectionaries necessarily believed these arguments was moot: the war clinched the all-important debate within the separatist movement as to whether an insurrection should take place."

The essay's point is actually explicitly to argue in favor of including the rebellion in the Great War. I'll pull up some quotes from Neiberg when I have some time. And Scolaire, you make good points. Perhaps I stated my position wrong again. I'm comparing this to the Hindu-German Conspiracy; that one never materialized, but the Irish one did. The Germans offered support as part of a wider campaign to complicate the British war effort. My stance is corroborated by Neiberg, but as I stated above, I'll pull up some quotes later. We both agree that the Germans weren't exactly on top of the Irish revolt, but their support, however lackluster, and the revolt itself should be understood in context as part of the wider conflict, ie. part of WW1. Will quote Neiberg soon. And in addition, we all agree that the Irish dissidents had been uncomfortable under Brit rule for some time; I'm not arguing against that.165.230.224.232 (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The sentence you quote doesn't say the Easter Rising was part of WW1, quite the opposite in fact. If it was actually part of WW1, there would be no need to say it needed to be looked at in the wider context of the war. There's no dispute that to fully understand certain aspects of the Rising you have to look at the full historical context, which is why this article does so already. What it doesn't and won't do is say "Part of World War 1" immediately below the name of the event in the infobox. FDW777 (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

FDW777, I'm not interested in arguing semantics. "within wider context of WW1" means part of WW1. The author doesn't need to knock us over the head or spoonfeed us the words exactly. Most people reading that sentence will understand that to mean part of WW1. For example, the Arab revolt in 1916 can only be understood in the wider context of WW1. There was Arab nationalism brewing in the years before, but the revolt only happened in the context of the war, meaning it was part of it. And the larger quote disproves, anyways, your stance. It says the revolt happened because of and as a result of World War I, and would not have occurred the same way without it. The burden of evidence is on you honestly to provide a source that explicitly claims that the Easter Rising was a totally isolated phenomenon that was in no way whatsoever part of any of the events of WW1, in any way. Plus, I'm the only one here that provided a source that supports their position. Please consider my other points, anyhow. Perhaps we should notify a noticeboard or seek some dispute resolution if this continues for a few more days.165.230.225.191 (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't need to provide any such source. Why not? Because, ambiguous wording aside, no historian worth his salt has ever said it was part of World War 1 to start with. I've considered all your points, they are worthless. The Rising was not part of World War 1, and you don't have a single reference that says it was never mind a consensus among historians. If you think your larger quote proves anything I suggest you learn a little about the raison d'être of the IRB. Your fringe POV pushing won't be going in the article. FDW777 (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I provided evidence from reputable sources and historians. You did not. Judging from your rather violent wording FDW777, you seem wedded to some ideology that forces you to adhere to some "fringe POV" of your own. The sources I provided state my claim, you are actually lying saying otherwise. I think at this point we need some form of third-party arbitration because you're stuck on some weird position.165.230.225.79 (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm with FDW777 on this one. Michael S. Neiberg may well say, in so many words, that the Rising was "part of" WW1; so then you'd have a source. So far, so good. But who is Michael S. Neiberg? His Wikipedia article doesn't tell me much. WP:V isn't everything; there's also WP:DUE. I don't know of any other historian of all the many who have written about the war who has said that the Rising was part of WW1. And I have read just about every book on the Rising – including two by Fearghal McGarry, who wrote the article you are so fond of quoting – and none of them say that the Rising was part of WW1, although they do place it in the context of the war, as well as in the context of the Home Rule Crisis, the Volunteer split, the formation of the coalition government, etc. etc. "Best understood within the wider context of" does not mean "was a part of". It just means that there was a war going on that had a bearing on the actions of the IRB, Volunteers and Citizen Army. The Easter Rising was part of the Irish revolutionary period, and that is what should go in the "part of" field of the infobox. Scolaire (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

And what is the "extraordinary claim" that requires extraordinary evidence? That it wasn't part of WW1? Do we need extraordinary evidence that it wasn't part of the Zulu War? Or Caesar's Gallic War? You are the only one making a claim. The rest of us are just saying that the evidence is rather thin. Scolaire (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

"Me three" (or four). I don't agree with the assertion/inclusion either. The Easter Rising was not "part of" World War I. None of the extensive sources (Coogan, Townshend, Foy and Barton, McNamara or others) support a claim that it was. While these works discuss the Rising in the context of WWI (including in an "England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity" context), none describe it as being "part" of the war. Multiple other editors have noted the lack of reliable, external or academic sources to support such a claim. A request for "third-party arbitration" (on a content dispute in which one editor has suggested a change which has been rejected by four other editors - now including myself) is not really what the arbitration channels are really "for". Anyway, I think we're largely done here. This is just noise now. Guliolopez (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Neiberg

I will admit I only skimmed through the Neiberg reference referred to above, however I am not about to admit he says the Rising was part of WW1. Having looked at it in more detail, it is practically useless as a reference as it contains what I can only describe as basic errors, in the absence of corroboration from other Rising-specific references as he offers no footnotes for fact checking. His area of expertise may be 20th-century military history, but it doesn't appear he researched Ireland particularly well.

• page 295 - "A number of Irishmen however, saw the war not as a chance to be granted Home Rule by a reluctant government in London, but to seize independence with their own hands. Led by Roger Casement, Irish separatists raised money among the Irish community in the United States, gathered arms, and opened up channels of communications to Germany."

I was not aware Roger Casement was ever the leader of Irish separatists, anyone else?

• page 296 - Two other events in 1916 added fuel to the already tense situation in Ireland. Early in the year, the British government granted a more limited version of Home Rule to the Dublin parliament, but did not extend that rule to Ulster. Sensing that they had been betrayed, Irish nationalists saw the move as a beginning of a permanent division of their island and reacted with anger."

What? When? It's the first I've heard of this happening in early 1916, anyone else?

• page 296 - "The British naturally suspected him [Casement] of treachery and presumed that a German-induced rebellion was imminent. The British army began preparations to meet such a rebellion in force. Three days later, on April 24, Irish nationalists seized the Dublin General Post Office and declared Ireland independent of the British Empire. Already on alert, British units responded in force, clearing Dublin block by block and using gunfire from riverboats to destroy nationalist strongpoints."

The general consensus among reliable references is that the British authorities were completely taken by surprise on Easter Monday despite the arrest of Casement three days earlier, and that it took time to get troops sent to Ireland to suppress the Rising. So the claim that the British Army "began preparations" and were "already on alert" would appear to be at odds with the mainstream consensus I think?

I suggest those three significant errors render Neiberg largely useless as a reference on the Easter Rising, even if he did actually say it was part of WW1. Which he didn't..... FDW777 (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Unbelievably bad! I did raise the question of how reliable a source this man was, but I didn't expect to find that he was utterly clueless. Scolaire (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

In general I don't think general history books should override ones specific to the topic, so I doubt even if Neiberg did have his facts all correct on this topic there would be much of anything he could add, and these excerpts don't reflect too well on his expertise on the subject. I mean, one could argue that Casement led the of opening of channels to Germany bit (and one could argue even that's putting it too strongly), and the British were somewhat on alert before the Rising, in the sense they knew something was planned, but following the sinking of the Aud, the arrest of Casement, and MacNeill's countermanding order, they assumed it wasn't going to happen, so they certainly were not prepared for what transpired on Easter Monday. That the Rising has a connection to the First World War is clear, and is covered in the article (the second sentence mentions it, no less), but to call it part of the war is a bit of a stretch, and doesn't seem to be backed up by reliable sources. No need to change the infobox. -R. fiend (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes I was about to concede that the Casement sentence might be referring to him leading efforts with Germany, and such errors often creep into books as a result of editors of books changing the wording of an existing sentence slightly without understanding the real meaning of what they are changing, however you posted before me. FDW777 (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, it seems that Neiberg has been proven, by FDW777 and Scolaire, in this talk page to be irrelevant to this discussion. Fair enough and I thank you guys for informing me. However, I'm still confident that the article from the online encyclopedia supports my stance. The author argues that the rising's timing and conduct were significantly influenced by the war, which is historically indisputable. There is no source claiming that the war had little to no influence on the conduct or timing of the revolt. If the revolt was significantly influenced by the Great War, what exactly is objectionable about its inclusion as part of it? By your logic, that means the Russian Revolution wasn't part of the Great War, only being an isolated revolt due to purely Russian circumstances. My point here is, and this specifically hasn't been explained, is why is the Easter Rising, despite being significantly influenced by the Great War, not part of the Great War? Scolaire points out that it is part of the Irish Revolutionary Period because it was significantly influenced by it, why not the same here? What information is necessary to conclude that the rising was part of the war? And why, despite the article to the contrary, is the rising not part of the war, and more of an isolated Irish event? To restate my position once again, I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE EASTER RISING WAS SOLELY CAUSED BY THE GREAT WAR, I UNDERSTAND THAT IT HAD PRECEDENTS AND A LONGER BACKSTORY, I'M NOT TRYING TO INSULT ANY IRISH CAUSE IF YOU FIND THAT OBJECTIONABLE. Honestly, in my opinion, I think the most logical thing here would be to keep Scolaire's recent edit, and add somewhere, infobox or not, that the Easter Rising was either part of the war (MEANING SIGNFICANTLY INFLUENCED BY IT) or influenced by it to a great degree. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

(1) The Russian Revolution article doesn't say it was part of the Great War; do you want to take your campaign over there? (2) I didn't say the Rising is part of the Irish Revolutionary Period because it was significantly influenced by it, I said it is part of the Irish revolutionary Period because that is how the Irish revolutionary period is defined. Every historian says it was part of the Irish Revolutionary Period. (3) This article puts the Rising in the context of the war in the second sentence of the lead. Please try to read at least that far before you complain about what is or isn't in it. Scolaire (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The 1917 Potato riots were also significantly influenced by the war (food shortages and excessive prices) but by no means part of the First World War. The two Russian revolutions in 1917 are also significantly influenced by the war but not war related. Not every feat that happened in the period 1914-1918 is war-related.

Beside that: you have no realistic evidence to connect the Easter Rising with the First World War as your only source has proven to be unreliable. The Banner talk 19:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The Potato riots article says the riots were war-related. They were caused by the war, hence war-related, hence part of the war. And the Russian Revolution was war-related, caused by the stresses of the war, only an idiotic historian would argue otherwise.98.221.136.220 (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

So you think that the Potato Riots were part of the war, even though the Netherlands were neutral and not involved in the war at all? Please, start doing your homework. The Banner talk 20:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The online encyclopedic article is a credible source. And if mention of the War is in the second sentence, what's your fear of putting it in the infobox: no harm done. Can someone please answer my question: why does significant influence not warrant inclusion? Answer this adequately and I'll drop it. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll answer you with another question: why does "inclusion" have to mean addition to the infobox? The war is included; it's just not in the infobox. The infobox is a panel...that summarizes key features of the page's subject. The war is significant. The consensus here is that it's not key. Now drop it, please. Scolaire (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Irish nationalists tried to exploit the war by obtaining German support, how could the Rising possibly be divorced from the war?

Herein were the intellectual foundations for the national liberation movements which German sponsored for India, Persia, Tunisia, Egypt, Ireland, and elsewhere.

— Strachan The First World War (2003) p. 1132

Keith-264 (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Not divorced, Keith (did you actually read the discussion?). Just not in the infobox. Scolaire (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

For the nth time, can you answer my last question? And why not in the infobox, how is that objectionable?98.221.136.220 (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I did answer. Consensus is against putting it in the infobox. Wikipedia works by consensus. "Objectionable" is a loaded term. We just don't agree with you that it belongs. Scolaire (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, yes. I understand you disagree. Very well. But why do you disagree? Specifically, why doesn't significant influence warrant inclusion? That's my only beef. And I use the word objectionable because you have given no reason why, if it's in the second sentence, the "part of WW1" part can never ever be part of the infobox. Honest confusion here. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources? And please, do not start the same c**p here too.] Just come up with reliable sources. The Banner talk 20:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The online article I provided up top which agrees with me, so please answer my question. And please stop stalking me and vandalizing any edits I do. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

To my opinion it is you who is vandalising, as this is again not a reliable source. For both articles: do you have any reliable sources or is it still just your private opinion? The Banner talk 21:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The same objection has been made by multiple editors, and contrary to the assertion it is not a case of people objecting without giving a reason. The reason stated to the inclusion of the phrase "Part of World War 1" has consistently been that the Rising is NOT "Part of World War 1". FDW777 (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Lads, I think it's time to deny recognition. --Scolaire (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I concur. The Banner talk 21:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Also concur. This is just noise. To trolling/IDHT levels. Guliolopez (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

No excluding it from the infobox is fatuous. Keith-264 (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. It's not just me. You haven't offered a reason why it positively can't be included. Yes historians claim its part of the Irish Revolutionary Period, good for them, but why do they do it? Because of significant influence. Same logic for WW1. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, with no actual reason given to deny inclusion, and with another Military History editor, Keith-264, agreeing with me against a bunch of ideologues (what stake they have in this, I wish I knew), I will edit the infobox again. First, however, I'll compile enough sources that state that the rebellion is part of the Great War, paste links to them here, then make the edit. Fair enough in my opinion. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The list:

http://theconversation.com/how-world-war-i-contributed-to-the-easter-rising-53409 (pretty good)

https://wwionline.org/articles/strike-freedom-1916-easter-rising-and-united-states/ ("ok" source, shows connections with the war)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_and_World_War_I (Oh Wow! The Wikipedia page mentions the easter rising as part of the war. Who would have known?)

https://www.rte.ie/centuryireland/index.php/articles/the-first-world-war-1916 (good source as well)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/britain_wwone/ireland_wwone_01.shtml (the BBC. Only a fool would deny this source)

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/irelands-role-in-the-first-world-war (the imperial war museum mentions the rising in the context, hence part of the war)

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/easter_rising_great_britain_and_ireland (this one, again, which proves my point)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMWP9G6gecc (yes. A video and thus not exactly reliable IMO. But goes to show that my position that the rebellion is part of the war is a widespread belief)

https://www.firstworldwar.com/features/easterrising.htm (shows how rising's timing and conduct, once again, was heavily influenced by the war, and is thus considered part of it)

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/seeing-wwi-and-the-irish-revolution-as-linked-great-wars-1.3620443 (See, even Irish people think they're connected)

What do all these source have in common? It shows that my position is a widespread, accepted belief, and that it is supported by a majority of people, and actual, and not self-styled, scholars. Any reversion against me at this point has to give some modicum of evidence in response, not just "I think the rebellion isn't part of the war because I said so.98.221.136.220 (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Posting links to lots of random websites that generally don't even say the Rising was part of World War 1 changes nothing, especially when the claim being added is not supported by actual historians who have published books on the Rising. FDW777 (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Reference? My sources are valid and from RS sites, do you have any reference to back up your claims that the rebellion wasn't part of the war? Oh, and are you going to vandalize the Ireland and World War I article, which mentions the Easter Rising (because it's a part of it), to get rid of any mention of the rising? 98.221.136.220 (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Skimming through this link dump I'm seeing a lot of stuff about the connections between the two, which no one denies exists, but not referring to the Rising as another theatre of WWI. If there is such a reference, could you at the very least quote it and say approximately where in the linked article it can be found? This is frankly starting to remind me of the habits of an insufferable user who thankfully departed years ago, after making these talk pages an enormous headache for anyone remotely involved with them. -R. fiend (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The only insufferable thing is not you, but the illogic I'm having to deal with. Check the Finnish Civil War. It's considered part of World War I, and just like the Easter Rising, you're going to have a tough time finding a historian saying explicitly in these exact words "It was part of the Great War for these reasons." Frankly I've never read a historian saying "The Battle of Verdun was part of WW1," simply because he doesn't have to say so. He or she assumes the reader is intelligent enough to know that including it among a database of, say, other articles on WW1 means he or she considers it part of WW1 (as the online WW1 encyclopedia article shows, the YouTube video, and others). Up in the discussion I quoted that the encyclopedic article as saying that the timing, conduct, and outcome of the Rising was determined by the Great War: the two are inseparable. The article really does argue that. See what Keith-264 posted on the arbitration page. And, I'll repeat ad nauseum, significant influence warrants inclusion. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)