Talk:Tom Clarke (Irish republican)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Tom Clarke? Who in the world calls him Tom Clarke? I'm moving it to Thomas Clarke Dermo69

Unfortunately, this page was not on my Watchlist when the move was made last year. I believe the move was a mistake. The following books, most of which are listed in the bibliography of the Easter Rising article, all give the his names as “Tom Clarke” not “Thomas Clarke”:

  • Max Caulfield, The Easter Rebellion, Dublin 1916
  • Tim Pat Coogan, 1916: The Easter Rising
  • Michael Foy and Brian Barton, The Easter Rising
  • C Desmond Greaves The Life and Times of James Connolly
  • Robert Kee, Ireland: A History
  • Charles Townshend, Easter 1916: The Irish Rebellion'
  • Seán Mc Mahon, Rebel Ireland
  • Annie Ryan, Witnesses: Inside the Easter Rising
  • Kathleen Clarke, Revolutionary Woman
  • Desmond Fitzgerald, Desmond’s Rising

The last three are especially important as they are the words of the people who actually knew and worked with this man. Kathleen Clarke was married to Tom, so she might be expected to know.
For these reasons, and because I am involved in an effort to improve the Easter Rising article, I propose to move this back to the original name. Scolaire 14:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This article has been renamed from Thomas Clarke (Irish republican) to Tom Clarke (Irish republican) as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 20:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


Sorry, the very source cited in the footnote specifically says "he held no formal military rank." (p. 37) It goes on to say that he was "recognized by the garrison as one of its commanders", but that's with a lowercase "c" and is not a rank; he was merely a person of authority. I have seen no evidence that Clarke ever was a member of the Volunteers, or even that they had an official rank of "Commander". Ruth Dudley Edwards even notes that he "avoided taking military rank" (Patrick Pearse: Triumph of failure, p. 276). So I'm removing the rank of Commander and membership in the Volunteers (I'll add the latter back if there's any evidence he actually joined the organization). I'll leave the years as the years he was in the IRB. -R. fiend (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"Though he held no formal military rank, Clarke, recognised by the garrison as one of the commanders, was active through out the week in the direction of the fight, and shared the fortunes of his comrad...The Proclamation of the republic must be regarded as the collective work of the signatories, members of the Provisional Government, all of them among the sixteen leaders later executed. Ruth Dudley Edwards even notes that he "avoided taking military rank", but dose not say he did not. In addition, he was the founding member of the military council. --Domer48 (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
As I said "No formal military rank". So he did not hold the rank of "Commander", even though he may have "commanded" men. You're backing up my point here. He was a leader of the Rising, to be sure (no one is denying that) but he held no rank and was not an official member of the Volunteers. Show me a source that he was. -R. fiend (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
If you want to put him down as in the IRA, or the Army of the Irish Republic, you might have a case (with sources), but he was not a "Commander" in the Volunteers (nor the IRB, who had no "rank" of "Commander"). -R. fiend (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The references are there, don’t disrupt wiki to make a WP:POINT. --Domer48 (talk) 10:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

“The acronym the Irish Republican Army was first used in 1867 to describe the ill-fated group of Fenian’s who invaded Canada in 1867. It was used again in 1916 to describe the Irish Citizen Army and Irish Volunteers who seized and held the centre of Dublin in the Easter Rising. In 1919 the Irish Volunteers adopted the name, the Irish Republican Army....Commandant James Connelly was cheered when he told them from now on there was no Irish Citizen Army and no Irish Volunteers. They were the Irish Republican Army. He gave the order to charge the GPO.” (The Volunteer: Uniforms, Weapons and History of the Irish Republican Army 1913-1997, by James Durney, Gaul House, Kildare, 2004) --Domer48 (talk) 10:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Add something relevant or nothing at all. Your own sources say Clarke held no rank. You have not demonstrated that Clarke was ever even a member of the Volunteers. Now you come here with irrelevant info on the IRA, an organization which isn't even mentioned in the goddamn article. Your consistent misinterpretation of simple text is making me question everything you add to Wikipedia. Show me a source which (specifically) states that Clarke held any rank (let alone the apparently non-existent rank of "Commander") in the Volunteers or quit adding it. -R. fiend (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
"Though he held no formal military rank, Clarke, recognised by the garrison as one of the commanders--Domer48 (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Commander is not a rank. If it said "position" and you put "leader" and left him out of the Volunteers you'd probably have a point. But he was not a Volunteer and he held no rank. The text is quite clear on this. -R. fiend (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
He was a founding member of the military council. BigDunc (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I KNOW. But how does being a member of the IRB Military Council make him a "Commander" in the Volunteers? That's why these templates are dumb, they don't allow for any change. He held no rank, though he did have several positions (signatory of the Proclamation, Treasurer of the IRB, founder of the Military Council, "leader" of the Rising, member of both the Supreme Council and the Executive Committee of the IRB) that might warrant inclusion under a heading other than "rank". He did not join the Volunteers. Putting him down as a member of the IRA is probably the closest anyone will get. But he did not hold a rank. He commanded men, but that does not give him the rank "Commander" any more than I get that rank for telling people what to do. Reference it with something that says he held that rank or quit adding it.
As for Padraig's comments below, that's basically true. Put him down as IRA or Army of the Irish Republic, but not the Volunteers. Then find source that he held the military rank of Commander in that army, and not that he was just considered a leader who "commanded" men because he was perceived as being in a position of authority. -R. fiend (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

While its true Tom Clarke held no rank in the Volunteers he was a member of the leadership of the IRB, but once the Rising started he was considered a Commander of the Army of the Republic when the members of the ICA, Irish Volunteers and Irish National Rifles involved in the rising came together to form the Army of the Republic or IRA. Clarkes reason for not accepting rank in the Volunteers prior to that was so as not to alert the authorities of the IRBs intentions.--Padraig (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The title of info box is "Allegiance." That he was behind their formation means it should be reflected in the info box. --Domer48 (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Is Allegiance not a loyalty to a nation, organisation, or cause. Tell me how this does not apply to him. BigDunc (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Then his allegiance should be Irish Republic, as his allegiance was to that, not to the Volunteers (an organization whose official aim was Home Rule). Additionally, he was not behind the creation of the Volunteers. Members of the IRB were, but not him. In any case, he did not hold the rank of "Commander" (a rank which is generally not associated with the army anyway). Provide a reference for an actual rank he officially held, don't just say he "commanded" people. -R. fiend (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Dunc, your talking to a wall, don't waste anymore time on them. --Domer48 (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It is pathetic to see the amount of bickering over something that is otherwise so simple. Do the people claiming that Tom Clarke held the rank of "Commander" not know the difference in meaning between capitalised uncapitalised nouns? There is nothing wrong with Domer48's source; the problem is that he is misreading it. If Tom Clarke held the rank of Commander, then the first letter of that word would be in capital letters in that extract. But it isn't. While the term Commander-in-Chief was used, "Commander" was not a rank in the IRB at the time of the 1916 rising (and please don't ask me to provide a source proving that something doesn't exist!).--Damac (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Your right Damac, he was a Commander in the Volunteers. --Domer48 (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, do you even read what other people write before you respond? -R. fiend (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Domer48, the rank of Commander never existed in the Irish Volunteers; are you not confusing it with Commandant? The book you cite talks about Clarke being "one of the commanders". There were many Commandants in the 1916 Rising, but no Commanders (apart from C-in-C Pearse. The use of (lower-case) commanders in your source is clearly another way saying "one of the leaders".--Damac (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Damac the rank of Commander did exist in the Irish Volunteers and was used at Company level, as in them having the ranks of Company Commander, Half-company Commanders and Section commanders. See Irish Volunteer Soldier 1913-23, by G White & B. O'Shea p.13 ISBN 1-84176-685-2.--Padraig (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, he was not Commandant. I think part of the problem is things such as ranks got confused when a couple different militant organizations merged to form the Army of the Irish Republic. As of Easter Saturday, the Volunteers had 4 Commandants, Daly, McDonagh, Ceannt, and De Valera (at least in Dublin). By Easter Monday they had Connolly as Commandant General of the Dublin division (actually not 100% sure division is the right word here, but you get the point), and I believe Mallin was also given that title for his battalion at Stephens Green. These of course were separate from the official ranks of the Volunteers, which had been in place for about a year. Whether or not they handed out a bunch of other ranks that day, I can't say, but I've seen no evidence for this (though perhaps Heuston became de facto Comamndant when he was in command of a group of men isolated in the Mendicity Institution). I'm still waiting to see evidence that Clarke held any rank at all. We all know he commanded men. That is not the issue here. Maybe we should just replace the military template with a more appropriate one, where his position can be explained without having to pretend he held some military rank? -R. fiend (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree fully, and should have been more precise in my last response. While some of the other 1916 leaders are often referred to with their rank (Commandant), Clarke never is because he wasn't one. He was, of course, a leader, and I don't think anyone here disputes that.--Damac (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The command structure of Republican forces were:

  • Commandant General & Commander-in-Chief of Irish Volunteers. - P. H. Pearse
  • Commandant General & Commander Dublin Division Irish Volunteers. - James Connolly
  • Commandant General - J. M. Plunkett

1st (Dublin City) Battalion Irish Volunteers - less D Company.

  • Commandant - E. Daly
  • Vice-Commandant - P. Breaslai

D - Company 1st (Dublin City) Battalion Irish Volunteers.

  • Sean Heuston - Captain D Company, 1st (Dublin City) Battalion Irish Volunteers.

2nd (Dublin City) Battalion Irish Volunteers.

  • Commandant - T. MacDonagh, Commander Dublin Brigade Irish Volunteers.
  • Vice-Commandant - Maj. J. Mc Bride

3rd (Dublin City) Battalion Irish Volunteers.

  • Commandant - E. de Valera, Adjutant Dublin Brigade Irish Volunteers.

4th (Dublin City) Battalion Irish Volunteers.

  • Commandant - E. Céannt
  • Vice-Commandant - C. Brugha

5th (North Dublin) Battalion Irish Volunteers.

  • Commandant - T. Ashe

Irish Citizens Army

  • Commandant - M. Mallin.

Irish Citizen Army (Detachment)

  • Captain - S. Connolly

Kimmage Garison

  • Captain - G. Plunkett

Source: Easter Rising 1916, by Peter McNally ISBN 978-1-84603-067-3. It is obvious from the list that it is not totally accurate or complete, but these are the positions he gives on the morning of the Rising.--Padraig (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Padraig. It's clear, therefore, that Clarke did not hold any formal rank.--Damac (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That basically is what I recall reading (though I hadn't realized Plunkett was also Commandant General, though I knew he was a principal strategist). The absence of Clarke and MacDermott seems to imply they held no rank (although MacDermott was certainly a member of the Volunteers, so it sees likely he held some sort of rank). Anyone have any idea why Dev has no Vice Commandant? I can't recall; was it someone who was unsympathetic to the rising and didn't show? Also, wasn't O'Hanrahan the official Vice Commadant before MacBride's unexpected appearance? -R. fiend (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The ranks given where those planned for the muster points on the morning of the rising, these may not have been actual positions when the rising got underway, there are obvious ommissions from the list.--Padraig (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The Office of Public Works, who maintaine the Prison publish Last words, so a GOVERNMENT supports it's inclusion. Now what the others need is a reference which says he held no position, official or otherwise. --Domer48 (talk) 12:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What we now have is an Admin, who can only resort to trying to make a point. I have provided a reference which is published by the Office of Public Works, a branch of the Irish Government, who are the custodians of Kilmainham Goal and museum. All that has been provided is a reference which says, he “avoided taking military rank.” Not that he did not. Yet, I have provided a reference mentioned above, which says he was “recognised by the garrison as one of the commanders.” Now would that suggest that the garrison would have accepted his orders, of course it would. Now, was he a commander of the IRA in Easter 1916, yes he was. Now since another reference would appear to be need I have provided on. “To my amazement, Tom turned into the avenue, accompanied by Tommy O’Connor, who had been appointed with Sean McGarry as his aide-de-camp.” My Fight for Ireland’s Freedom, Kathleen Clarke, RP 1997, ISBN 0 86278 245 7, page 75. --Domer48 (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
If the reference says he had been appointed an Aide-de-Camp Tommy O'Connor then Clarke must have held an accepted a rank of Commander.--Padraig (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Tommy O’Connor and Sean McGarry, he was appointed two. Sean McGarry was also a very good friend of his. --Domer48 (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's already been established that the first reference does not state that he held the rank of Commander. It even says he did not hold any rank. The second said he had an aide de camp (or two). This implies that he did hold some form of rank or position of authority, but it does not state what that rank might have been. The current quote doesn't give adequate context for knowing exactly what is meant by that in any case, as aide de camp is not a very specific term. There is still no reference specifically saying that Clarke held the rank "Commander". -R. fiend (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because you refuse to accept the references, dose not change a thing. It is obvious you just want to make a point. I suggest you stop. --Domer48 (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Commander revisited[edit]

I wanted to out out some conflicts on other pages before revisiting this, but there's progress being made there so I think it's time. I was sort of under the impression that there was a general consensus that Clarke did not hold the rank of Commander, but he was a' "commander" (small c) in the sense that he did command men. This is not an official rank (or an unofficial one, for that matter), as the source cited makes very clear. The only new information is that Clarke was appointed two aides-de-camp. That's nice and all, but where is it written that having an aide-de-camp appointed is something that only happens to people who hold the rank of Commander? I, for one, am of the opinion that this entire infobox is nto really appropriate for Clarke, and would like to see another. Maybe we could even make an Easter Rising infobox just for the people involved? Then we could reject the entire notion of "Rank" in this case and get around to stating his real, critical, role in the Rising. -R. fiend (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with the idea of a Easter Rising infobox for use in these articles, the rank field could then either be eliminated or we could have the option of it or a position field.--Padraig (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. This whole notion of "rank" has drawn attention away from his integral role in the Rising (him being the Rising's father, if it can be said to have one) to a petty squabble over how to define his exact position. I think it is pretty clear he did not hold the rank of Commander; your post above, showing the ranks of the involved parties, indicates that. Mentioning that Sean Connolly was a Captain but neglecting to mention the rank of Commander for Clarke? Not if he actually held such a rank, I don't think. I'm fully in favor of a different infobox. An Easter Rising one could work, if its existence can be justified (I have to admit, the military infobox seems to work fine for most of the participants, but not Clarke, at least). Making templates is not my forte, so I will not volunteer, but if anyone has a thought on this, this would be a great place to discuss it. -R. fiend (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As soon as you get a reference which says he did not have a rank, not one which says that he avoided one mind you, then we can move on. --Domer48 (talk) 11:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I created Template:Infobox Irish Republican based on the Military Person one I removed un-necessary field and include a field for position, which gives us the option of having either Rank or Position I have tried it out on this article, any comments or suggestions.--Padraig (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sound Pádraig, if you could present it as field Position / Rank, that would cover both, as rank is more clearly established on the other articles. --Domer48 (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You have the option of using either rank or position or both if necessary, you just use whichever is best.--Padraig (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the references, one editor insists on pushing their opinions on the article. Please do not simply blind revert again on this or any other of the articles you insist on pushing your opinions. --Domer48 (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a revert (blind or otherwise), it's a correction, and saying exactly what the reference says. It says he was "recognised by the garrison as one of the commanders", that's commander with a small "c" (i.e. "one who commands"), and exactly what I made the infobox reflect. The link is to the rank Commander, which he did not hold. Your own source says "he held no formal military rank". Now, I have no idea what an "informal" military rank might be, but go down to your local barracks and ask around what sort of informal ranks various people hold and see what sort of replies you get. I'd be curious to know. We changed the template to reflect his lack of any rank, linking to the rank recreated the same error. It's not an "opinion". -R. fiend (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Pádraig has addressed this issue, that it dose not sit with your opinion is regrettable but all to familiar. No provide a references which says he was not "recognised by the garrison as one of the commanders", and you just might have a point. --Domer48 (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you even look at the edit I made? I called him a "commander" in it, so yes, he was "recognised by the garrison as one of the commanders". Linking to the formal military rank Commander when he "held no formal military rank" is simply erroneous. So I removed the link and lowercased the "c" to reflect what the text that you provided said. Explain where this is wrong, because I'm starting to seriously doubt your reading comprehension. -R. fiend (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because you refuse to accept the references, dose not change a thing. It is obvious you just want to make a point. I suggest you stop.--Domer48 (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I take it from your refusal to address the topic at hand, or even attempt to refute a single thing I said, that you have no case. Very well. I'll be restoring my edit then. Provide a reference that shows he held the formal military rank of [[Commander] and we'll have something to discuss. -R. fiend (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Tom Clarke "always regarded himself as a soldier of the Irish Republic," and as a soldier, he held the rank of a "Commander". Now that is a quote from P. S. O'Hegarty, in his introduction to "Glimpses of an Irish Felon's Prison Life" by T. J. Clarke. Just because you refuse to accept the references, dose not change a thing. It is obvious you just want to make a point. I again suggest you stop. You already reverted the edit, again edit warring --Domer48 (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And I regard myself as a Galactic Soldier of Justice, and as such, I hold the rank of Grand Poo-bah. (Oh, and you can't accuse me of ignoring sources you never provided before.) You're really stretching credibility here. The infoboxes are for actual ranks held by military people, not what they considered themselves. The infobox, with the changes made by Padraig and me, is much more complete and accurate now. I suggest you let it be. -R. fiend (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because you refuse to accept the references, dose not change a thing. It is obvious you just want to make a point. It will be changed, inline with the references, and since you have decided to or been reduced to babbling and claiming credit for Pádraig’s efforts, to continue to feed you will only encourage such inane responses.--Domer48 (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, both of you, remain calm and civil and focus on the reasons in terms of our policies that you wish to make your edit. Thanks, --John (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have provided references in relation to Clark and the rank he help during the Easter Rising. The sources are both valid and reliable. They meet the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia which is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that it has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that they wish to challenge. This editor has not provided any references which say Clarke did Not hold a rank, and was not a "Commander." Dispite this they have reverted this information a number of times since the 19 Dec 2007. --Domer48 (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm just about done with this conversation, but I'll say just a bit more. Let's take a look at what your sources say:
  1. Mac Lochlainn: "he held no formal military rank." You want to argue he held an informal military rank? You can start be defining what the hell that means. So he was "recognised by the garrison as one of the commanders". Great, but commander with a small "c" is the noun form of the verb "to command", which is separate from a rank (which the same paragraph specifically says he did not hold). You almost might as well argue that someone who charges something is a member of the San Diego Chargers.
  2. Kathleen Clarke: "Tommy O’Connor... had been appointed.. as his aide-de-camp." Great, but nowhere does that mention any rank, let alone the rank of Commander.
  3. O'Hegarty: Tom Clarke "always regarded himself as a soldier of the Irish Republic." This tells us nothing.
So where are these reliable sources showing his rank? -R. fiend (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"recognised by the garrison as one of the commanders". I have provided references in relation to Clark and the rank he help during the Easter Rising. The sources are both valid and reliable. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that they wish to challenge. This editor has not provided any references which say Clarke did Not hold a rank, and was not a "Commander."--Domer48 (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously though this is far from self-evident as an entry for the infobox. I can see where both of you are coming from. Please see if you can compromise and/or seek wider consensus on this point. --John (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It's very difficult to reach compromise on a problem that has arisen from an evident problem in basic literacy. The source that Domer48 provides for Clarke holding a rank clearly states that "Clarke held no formal military rank." It also refers to "commander" and not "Commander". There is a difference. No one would doubt that Patrick Pearse was an "organiser" of the 1916 Rising, yet he was not the "Organiser". In English, capitalisation (the first letter as a majuscule), is always used to describe honorifics, titles and ranks.
As there is no logic in Domer48's claim, his repeated demand that other editors provide evidence that Clarke did not hold military rank are impossible to fulfil. It is impossible to provide evidence to prove that A doesn't exist, when the whole basis for claiming that A exists is based on nothing.--Damac (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, but no cigar. "Clarke held no formal military rank." Clearly states that he held on formal rank, not that he did not hold one. Regardless what you think, he was "recognised by the garrison as one of the commanders". --Domer48 (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not a rank, it's a perception on the part of the garrison.--Damac (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He was " one of the commanders". Please don't try wikilawyering, it is not productive. --Domer48 (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Being recognised as something does not necessarily mean you are that. While I may "recognise" some people to be eejits, that does not necessarily mean they are one. You are taking a subjective interpretation here (recognised ... as a commander), and elevating to an objective fact.--Damac (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He was " one of the commanders". Please don't try wikilawyering, it is not productive. As with this author, are they suggesting these did not hold rank?

“It also approved his proposal to use in the attack officers from the Fianna, the republican boy scout organisation. MacDonagh, his commandant, then promoted him to lieutenant, a post senior enough to enable him to recruit for the operation.” Michael Foy and Brian Barton, The Easter Rising P.35

“While the Military Council refined the general plan, battalion commandants instructed their officers to gather intelligence on their areas of operations, select outposts and ready their men psychologically and militarily for urban warfare. De Valera, commandant of the 3rd Dublin Battalion, meticulously reconnoitred the district surrounding Boland’s Mills, while his officers identified garages, stables and factories, and food, clothing and medical stores.” Michael Foy and Brian Barton, The Easter Rising P.36

“The circle of knowledge widened further as battalion commandants briefed their senior officers.” Michael Foy and Brian Barton, The Easter Rising P.55 --Domer48 (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It is well known that "commandant" was a rank in the Irish Volunteers. "Commander" was not. There is abundant evidence to say that all of the people above held the rank of commandants. There is none to suggest that Clarke was ever appointed as "Commander Thomas Clarke". While we can find references to "Commandant Eamon de Valera" in documents, you will find none for "Commander Thomas Clarke" or for "Commander A. N. Other". The rank did not exist. In the context of 1916, the term/rank commandant does exist in upper-case letters; the description "commander" never. Someday it might dawn on you.--Damac (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He was " one of the commanders". Please don't try wikilawyering, it is not productive. Now you are just out to make a point, and waste time, go ahead. Just do not disrupt Wiki trying to do it. --Domer48 (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, being recognised as something does not make you that. The text you provide clearly states that Clarke did not have a "formal rank". His men recognised him as a leader/commander. That is not the same as a rank. Had he held a rank, the author would have surely mentioned it.--Damac (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Was he Irish?[edit]

He was born in the Isle of Wight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Streona (talkcontribs) 08:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's see... Irish parents, Irish name, jailed for Irish revolutionary activities, lived in Ireland, married an Irishwoman, opened a shop in the Irish capital with his name in Irish above the door, was Head Centre of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, the first signatory of the Proclamation of the Irish Republic...
Gee, I don't know! Scolaire (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

But from the Isle of Wight though ? I know people in the Isle of Wight called "Clarke" and electrical shops called "Clarkes" in Sandown and Shanklin. Many people from the Isle of Wight marry foreigners- including myself. I think at the time separate nationalities within the whole of the British Empire did not legally exist. He was a Caulkhead ! --Streona (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


I like the "revolutionary" infobox better than the "military" one because essentially a revolutionary is what he was. Just a minor quibble: is "religion" really necessary? Of all the leaders I suspect he was one of the least religious. Scolaire (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Tom Clarke (Fenian)[edit]

Scolaire could you please explain why you reverted my re-direct of this article. I gave a clear rational, which is supported by the article text. I note that no comment or rational was given for this, and would like one now thanks. I have no problem with the use of WP:BRD, except when it is not followed up with a talk page contrabution. How is an editor to know what was wrong with the change in the absence of a rational or comment. --Domer48'fenian' 13:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Tom Clarke and Ned Daly are known as 1916 leaders, not primarily as Fenians. I'm not disputing that they were in the IRB, but the mere fact that he was something would also support Tom Clarke (Isle of Wight), Tom Clarke (prisoner) or Tom Clarke (tobacconist). The current name is the best one. "Irish revolutionary", for consistency with the Ned Daly article, would also be acceptable, but you haven't shown why a page move is necessary at all. BRD means you are bold, I revert and you open the discussion. I don't believe in moving a page without even giving notice. Scolaire (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2008
Hear, hear. The recent moves were ridiculous. A similar attempt was made with Matthew Harris (Fenian). While Harris was a member of the IRB, he was expelled from the Supreme Council and later went on to become an MP. As I couldn't seem to revert this move, which came with no forewarning or discussion, Matthew Harris (politician) has now become Matthew Harris (Irish politician).--Damac (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

We agree then that Tom Clarke and Ned Daly are 1916 Leaders and both were members of the IRB (Fenians). Clarke became the leading member of the IRB in Ireland, but was also a member of Clan na Gael acting along with John Devoy in planning the Rising. Therefore the most discriptive and correct term is Fenian, which covers both wings. Ned Daly was a notable member of the IRB because of his execution, the only brother of Kathleen Clarke, brother inlaw of Tom, and whose uncle was John Daly a leading Fenian. But not simply as an "Irish revolutionary." Could you please offer an alternative rational to that above, as you haven't shown why your revert was necessary at all. In addition, please read bold again, it is up to you to open the discussion, I hope that helps, --Domer48'fenian' 14:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The correct article name is not the most specific thing you can say about a subject, it is the thing that makes it easiest to find. Thus Thomas Hart Benton (senator), not Thomas Hart Benton (U.S. Senator from Missouri). The current title is fine. Please leave it alone. Scolaire (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, the correct article name is the most specific thing you can say about a subject. Now again, please provide a rational for your bold revert, other than its just fine, thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 14:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I am saying nothing more. This is no longer an uncontroversial move. You are free to make a move request if you want to pursue this. Scolaire (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You have provided no rational for your revert, please do so now thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 14:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Since Scolaire has indicated above that they have nothing left to offer this discussion, including a rational for there blind revert (offered no rational), I have made the change outlined here and the reason why. Thanks --Domer48'fenian' 08:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The move to Tom Clarke (Fenian) is contested. You have my rationale. Whether or not you agree with it is immaterial. The article may only be moved through a Requested move. Scolaire (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"The correct article name is not the most specific thing you can say about a subject, it is the thing that makes it easiest to find." Is that a rational? Is Tom Clarke notable because he was a tobacconist, prisoner or because he came from the Isle of Wight of course not, that would be plain nonsence. So we have James Stephens (Fenian), John Daly (Fenian) and John O'Leary (Fenian) but for consistency you want Tom Clarke (Irish republican), even though on the Irish republican article it only mentions Fenian once. Despite the fact that he is a notable Fenian, you want Irish republican because its easier to find?

On Ned Daly, your rational for reverting again was ""Irish revolutionary", for consistency with the Ned Daly article." And this maintains consistency with what? Consistant with Tom Clarke (Irish republican)? So "This is no longer an uncontroversial move" because you what consistency, but ignore the fact that Tom Clarke (Fenian) is being consistant with his comrades from the period. Likewise with Ned Daly "This is no longer an uncontroversial move" because you say you want consistency, but with what? The correct article name is the most specific thing you can say about a subject, and in Ned Daly's case, that he was a notable member of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, not the nonsence of an "Irish revolutionary."

Now this in not a controversial move, and no one would have difficulty finding these people with the subject specific titles I've used, which leaves editors wondering why this is being made difficult. Your rational dose not support your own arguement, and rather than filing a move request, I will again ask that you provide a rational which supports your additional revert. --Domer48'fenian' 13:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll spell it out once again. My rationale[1] is (1) that the current name is the best one - this applies to both articles - and (2) that you haven't shown why a page move is necessary at all. Is the problem with his being Irish or his being a republican? There's no point in discussing the best alternative name if there's no basis for saying the current name is wrong. I suggested that if you wanted to raname this article "Tom Clarke (Irish revoutionary)" for consistency with the Ned Daly article, there might be some logic in that, but on the whole I'm not in favour of moving it at all. The three people you cite belong primarily to the era of the Fenian Rising, hence "(Fenian)"; Clarke, as you've agreed, belongs primarily to the era of the Irish Republic, hence "(Irish Republican)". Per WP:RM, "if there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or if the page has recently been moved in good faith, or if anyone could honestly disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial." And why are you unwilling to go to RM anyway? If "editors are left wondering why this is being made difficult" the result will surely be a move anyway. Scolaire (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the articles on the three Fenians, you will find they are not primarily the era of the Fenian Rising. Clarke was in prison with John Daly and one of his most trusted friends. Now please address the question I asked, were is the consistency with both Clarke and Ned Daly? Please point to the article they are being consistent with? Failing to provide articles to support your opinion will leave editors wondering why this is being made difficult, when the suggested name changes will provide the very consistency you mention? The Ned Daly article is going to be moved anyway to its origional name per common name, which just leaves Clarke, and the three articles I cite were all his contemporaries. --Domer48'fenian' 18:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about historical context, not date of birth. If Clarke had retired had retired after his release from prison he would have belonged primarily to the era of the Fenian Rising, which covers the second half of the nineteenth century and probably some of the twentieth; if John Daly been a leader in 1916, he would have belonged primarily to the era of the Irish Republic. As it is, they both belong where they are now. My only suggestion about consistency was to make the two titles consistent with each other, but I will withdraw that since you find it problematical. And the Daly article is not going to be moved anywhere without proper discussion. If it is I will move it back. Scolaire (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Please just provide the links to the articles you suggest you are being consistent with? "If Clarke had retired had retired after his release from prison he would have belonged primarily to the era of the Fenian Rising" So in other words they are his contemporaries. Links please? --Domer48'fenian' 19:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh just bring the damn thing to requested moves and be done with it. -R. fiend (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Once and for all, I never said I was being consistent with anything. Therefore I can't link to anything. You haven't answered any of my questions. Why is the current title wrong? Is the problem with "Irish" or with "republican"? Why are you unwilling to go through RM? Scolaire (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not unwilling to go through RM? I'll give you five reasons why I should not have to file one. Thomas M. Coffey in Agoney at Easter: The 1916 Irish Uprising, pg. 11 describes Clarke as "One of the last surviving members of the Fenian movement." Charles Townshend in Easter 1916: The Irish Rebellion on pg.18 describes Clarke as "the exiled Fenian dynamitard" and Kevin Nowlan, on pg. 112, in Leaders and Men of the Easter Rising Dublin 1916 as ""an old Fenian who had endured with courage." Piaras F. Mac Loughlainn, Last Words, pg. 37 describes him as the "Fenian veteran." D.J. Hickey & J. E. Doherty, A New Dictionary of Irish History from 1800, on pg.71 actually open with "Clarke, Thomas J. (1858 - 1916) Fenian."
Scolaire you did raise the issue of consistency when in your opening comment you said,"Irish revolutionary", for consistency with the Ned Daly article." On Clarke, all you've given is "The current name is the best one." Thats it. "The correct article name is the most specific thing you can say about a subject." So again, please provide the links to the articles you suggest you are being consistent with? You can't? So what is your reason? Now why, despite Clarks notability as a Fenian do you object to this being included? It is begining to look like your just opposed to the move for the sake of it? --Domer48'fenian' 20:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Read what I said again. On the Tom Clarke talk page I said that the Tom Clarke (Irish republican) article might be renamed Tom Clarke (Irish revolutionary) for consistency with the Ned Daly article i.e. Edward Daly (Irish revolutionary). I didn't say I was in favour of it and I didn't say it would make either of them consistent with anything else and I've since withdrawn the suggestion. Now, you answer my questions, all three of them. It looks as though you want to move just for the sake of it and I am utterly opposed to that. Scolaire (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

R. fiend I may have to agree with you. Despite the overwhelming supporting information and rational, Scolaire seems intent on not providing any rational other than "The current name is the best one." Scolaire are you willing to offer any supporting information which would allow us to see why "The current name is the best one?" Explain why it "makes it easiest to find?" Explain why "The correct article name is not the most specific thing you can say about a subject?" Explain why "This is no longer an uncontroversial move?" --Domer48'fenian' 23:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Scolaire's rationale seems pretty clear to me: using the "(Fenian)" implies he is most well known for involvement with 19th century Fenianism, and while he was certainly part of that movement, it is not what he is remembered for. It is for his role in 20th century republicanism that he has an article here. That being said "Fenian" is not incorrect, and is a bit more brief, which there is something to be said for, and the "(Irish republican)" dabber does nto seem to be used elsewhere. In any case, it is clearly not an uncontroversial move, and therefore should be brought to the requested move page. Personally, I think a big deal is being made out of a minor issue. There must surely be some title everyone can agree on. I'd actally make the case that this is probably the most notable Tom Clarke, and therefore should be moved to Tom Clarke and have that page moved to Tom Clarke (disambiguation). That, of course, would take some doing. -R. fiend (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

R. fiend again I'd have to agree with you. "Fenian" is not incorrect, and is a bit more brief, which there is something to be said for, and I also think a big deal is being made out of a minor issue, and can't understand why? The "(Irish republican)" dabber actually does be used elsewhere, with just some examples being Edward O'Brien (Irish republican), Martin Meehan (Irish republican), Thomas Murphy (Irish republican)‎, Volunteer (Irish republican), Rory O'Connor (Irish republican), Stephen Hayes (Irish Republican), Liam Lynch (Irish Republican), Tom Williams (Irish Republican) and ‎Danny Morrison (Irish republican). I personally consider Clarke is most well know among the authors mentioned above and among his ‎contemporaries James Stephens (Fenian), John Daly (Fenian) and John O'Leary (Fenian), as a Fenian. He is therefore most well known for involvement with 19th century Fenianism, and that is supported by the sources above, which I know you could probably add to also. Put simply, is Clarke most well know for his involvment in todays IRA or the Fenians. I'd have no problem with it being the former, if I could support it with sources, but accept the latter is the most accurate, would you not agree?--Domer48'fenian' 08:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If you're trying to say that Clarke's most notable actions took place during the dynamite campaign, and he is most well-known for that and not for being the primary instigator of the Easter Rising then, no, we do not agree. I'd think it was a universally acknowledged fact that his role in 1916 was far and away the most significant thing about him. Had he not returned to Ireland in 1907 I doubt he'd even have an article here. Even finding the details of what he did before he was sent to prison is not easy, as just about all writings on him deal with the Easter Rising, not with his earlier work with the Fenians. (Even Kathleen, if I recall, glosses over his role in the dynamite campaign in her memoirs.) I hadn't realized that the Irish republican dabber was as widely used as this, and now that I see it is the need for a move strikes me as even less necessary. In fact, it seems that Edward Daly's article should probably be moved to that for consistency's sake. -R. fiend (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

R. fiend what I'm saying, is Clarke is a notable Fenian, and all the sources refer to this singular fact. Do you not agree with that? John Daly was both his prison comrade and confidant, and recognised as one of the leading Fenians of his time. Clarke was released from prison as part of the Fenian inspired amnesty campaigned (The is no Article yet on John "Amnesty" Nolan yet). Along with John Devoy, Tom Clarke you are correct was the single most important factor in the planning of the 1916 Rising. Tom Clarke was the single most important Fenian in Ireland at this time. The most apt title, based on all the available sources, and to remain “consistent” with the other articles, “Fenian” is the most logical. Do you not agree? Ned Daly was the origional article name and it was change to Edward Daly. I will be looking to have it moved back per WP:COMMONAME, would you agree with that? --Domer48'fenian' 20:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion, do Editors still feel that a move request is needed, or should Clarke stay along with the IRA members instead of the Fenians? --Domer48'fenian' 15:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Date of birth[edit]

The National Library of Ireland says he was born in 1858.[2]
reliability: don't they have all the books?

This site[3] give very definite dates for his parents' marriage and his subsequent date of birth. I haven't seen any mention of him being born out of wedlock, so if their wedding date is correct, he was born in 1858.
reliability: looks well-researched, but no sources given

The Irish Republic: a documented chronicle of the Anglo-Irish conflict and the partitioning of Ireland, with a detailed account of the period 1916-1923[4] says 1858.
reliability: takes its info from Tom Clarke and the Irish freedom movement written in 1936, the closest publication to the actual event I could find

Shall the birthdate be changed? Colemcginnis (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because currently there is no citation at all for the date. Here is a book citation for a date of 11 March 1858. Scolaire (talk) 12:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Done. Colemcginnis (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The Irish Volunteers[edit]

I have placed the "Unreferenced section" tag, for obvious reasons. In particular, I'd really like to see the reference which supports the suggestion that Redmond "demanded equal control of the Volunteers." --Domer48'fenian' 22:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I made a partial revert of this edit, as only one source was added, with unreferenced text not addressed, and no reference was added to the other section at all.
This sentence "John Redmond, the leader of the Irish Parliamentary Party, demanded equal control of the Volunteers in the form of 25 additional representatives on its Provisional Committee, to be nominated by the IPP.Michael Tierney, Eoin MacNeill: Scholar and Man of Action, Clarendon Press Oxford, p. 138-139," is contradicted by the The O'Rahilly, in his The Secret History of the Irish Volunteers, 3rd Edition, pages 7-8 and Aodogán O'Rahilly, Winding the Clock: O'Rahilly and the 1916 Rising, page 103. It is also contradicted by Marnie Hay, Bulmer Hobson and the Nationalist Movement in Twentieth-Century Ireland, page 122, in addition to Dorothy Macardle, The Irish Republic, page 98, Robert Kee, The Green Flag, 501, Charles Townshend, Easter 1916: The Irish Rebellion, page 52-3. Redmond wanted complete control of the Volunteers.--Domer48'fenian' 18:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The demands of Redmond and his negotiations with MacNeill and co. are not terribly straightforward and any detailed coverage of them would belong elsewhere, most likely the Irish Volunteers article, not in the Tom Clarke article. I'll get the sources out when I have more time, but my understanding of the situation is that Redmond, after various proposals were floated back and forth on both sides, demanded that he ("he" being nominally, at least, the IPP) be allowed to appoint an equal number of members to the council as were currently seated. However, as a handful of the current members were already Redmondites, this would basically give him de facto control. What the situation would effectively be, and what he was officially demanding, were not therefore exactly the same, so summarizing it one way or the other is difficult. This is compounded by the fact that appointing someone does not necessarily mean they lack any independence in thought or action (Hobson being an example of this), so his actual "control" may not be as concrete as one would imagine. I suggest moving this to the IV article, where a more detailed coverage of this specific topic would be appropriate. It is out of the scope of this article. R. fiend (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that, for the purposes of an encyclopedia at least, it is perfectly straightforward. Domer argues that Redmond wanted "complete" control; R. fiend says he wanted "de facto" control. There isn't a hair's breadth of difference between these two, but they are both different from "equal" control. My bold solution is simply to take out the adjective altogether, and leave it that he wanted "control". I'm pretty sure this is consistent with the cited source. Feel free to revert if you disagree. Scolaire (talk) 07:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The only problem with that is it makes it sounds like Redmond demanded that the entire IV be handed over to his personal command - lock, stock, and barrel. That isn't really what he said, and it isn't what happened either. There is a difference between appointing representatives to a committee and having total control. Keep in mind they did give in to his demands, and MacNeill still maintained his leadership position afterwords; they were not "John Redmond's Volunteers". I think the most fair assessment would be that his demand would make IPP representatives/appointments a majority on the Provisional Committee, which states the facts accurately without having to make a claim as to exactly what sort of "control" this would give Redmond (I'll check on those numbers if I can find them). Again, this is really a discussion for the Irish Volunteers article. -R. fiend (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Please provide the quote from the source cited which would support your edit.--Domer48'fenian' 07:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I have altered the statement to reflect exactly what the cited source says. Hope that satisfies you. -R. fiend (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the unreferenced text and did a re-write with the whole section referenced.--Domer48'fenian' 19:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I see you removed the referenced as well as the unreferenced text, and replaced it with a vague description of your choosing. In any case, this now goes quite outside the scope of the Tom Clarke article, as much of what's been added is not about him, as he was not even a member of the Volunteers. I suggest a basic cut-and-paste of most of this into the Irish Volunteers article, where it belongs, with a bit more on what exactly Redmond's ultimatum said (following some cleanup of the writing). It never said "I demand control of the Volunteers", as the article now seems to say. What he did demand (25 new additions to the Provisional Committee, appointed by him and/or the IPP) could have been what one could call "control", but it was not a complete handover of power, regardless of vague statements by certain sources. Certainly Clarke, MacDermott, and others in the IRB viewed this as a complete takeover by Redmond, and their fears were certainly not groundless, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. The best one could say, while maintaining NPOV, is that giving in to his demands would give the IPP a controlling stake in the Provisional Committee. Keep in mind they did give in to his demands, and he did not wield complete control over the IV, or else the non-Redmondite MacNeill would not have remained in his leadership role, they would not have been able to import guns at Howth without Redmond's knowledge (let alone approval), nor would they have been able to dismiss the Redmondites following the Woodenbridge speech. (In fact, if Redmond had complete control over the Volunteers, there would likely not have been an Easter Rising at all.)
Also, is the picture of Daly necessary? He's mentioned briefly once. If we need a portrait in that section I'd suggest MacDermott, who was much more relevant to the topic. -R. fiend (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Its exactly within the scope of the Tom Clarke article, suggest which section in not. The information is not vague, but if it requires exact quotes I'll add them. I'll add more on the demand, and will quote Redmond, if it is not clear enough. As to the rest, use sources with quotes and not vague speculations please to illustrate the points you want to make. Not pushed on which photo, but we must remember that it was Daly who brought him into the IRB, Daly who was in prison with him, it was Daly's niece who he married, and it was Daly who was is guiding influence. I'll probably add more on his relationship with Daly if it appears vague. --Domer48'fenian' 22:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
There are quite enough quotes, thank you. If the article gets any more quotes strung together with fragments of text between them it will resemble a Conservapedia article. But that's beside the point. Right now this article covers the Redmond situation in much more depth than the Irish Volunteers article, which is where these details should be covered. The important aspects to this article are Clarke's objections to any intrusion by Redmond, and his consequential falling out with Hobson because of it. As for the changes you made, you deleted Redmond's specific demand and replaced it with the vague "John Redmond demanded control." The difference may be a bit subtle, but it is significant.
Certainly Daly was a significant figure in Clarke's life, but not terribly involved in what this section deals with. Perhaps his picture should be moved into the previous one? -R. fiend (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I've added additional footnotes, feel fee to add them to the Irish Volunteers article if you wish. I think they cover the nature and motivation behind Redmond's demand quite well, I could add more if you still find it to vague?--Domer48'fenian' 22:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Again, much of this belongs in the Irish Volunteers article, and I'll look into incorporating it into there in a somewhat elegant fashion in the next few days. I have some other sources which would be relevant as well. Consequently, I think this article should be trimmed to the aspects that directly concern Clarke, which does not so much include details on conversations between Casement and Devlin, nor between MacNeill and associates, nor Redmond's motivation and other such details. The IV article is the place for this. The mention of Redmond's demand appearing in the press seems out of place as well, especially as its significance is not explained. (I believe it was significant because it signaled the end of any negotiations, and issued a take-it-or-leave-it demand placed upon the Volunteers' leadership, but I wouldn't want to be accused of adding anything without references.) I'm also not sure why Redmond's specific demand, which is more pertinent to the topic, has been relegated to the footnotes. I would like to get some other opinions on this before any more significant changes are made. I would however like to move the Daly picture into the earlier section, in which he was a significant figure. I think it should replace the image of the Wicklow memorial, as we have 2 other memorial photos in the article, which is plenty as it is. -R. fiend (talk) 04:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Some background is required, and if anything, why Clarke was opposed to Redmond's take over should be expanded. What was Redmond's specific demand? The information as it stands could do with more being added not removed. No problem with moving the Wicklow memorial, but not its removal.--Domer48'fenian' 07:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Of course some background is required, but not all these details, at least not in this article. What is important, in my view is: 1. Redmond's demand (25 new members, appointed by the IPP) 2. What that meant (an IPP majority on the Provisional Committee) 3. Why Clarke was so opposed to it (he viewed it as a takeover by unsympathetic forces) 4. How the motion was carried (Hobson's role in influencing the vote) 5. What this meant to Clarke (he never spoke to Hobson again, making the Clarke/MacDermott link stronger). While there's quite a bit of other good information there, this isn't the place for it. I'll discuss the abundance of memorial images later, as I feel it may be distracting to this discussion. -R. fiend (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── What is important is that our "views" do not appear in the article as unsupported text. Why did Redmond want to control the Volunteers? There are a number of reasons, one is that if he could not control them he would crush them, another is that he was acting a the behest of the English Government. I could suggest more, but the article covers it pretty much at the moment. Hobson's role is covered, could possibly be expanded, but it is ok. The Clarke / MacDermott link was already strong and Hobson's actions made no difference at this stage. I could add supporting text for this if you want? The information that is here is here because of Clarke, and is relevant. --Domer48'fenian' 19:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Why exactly Redmond wanted control of the Volunteers is relevant to the Volunteers article and the Redmond article (and perhaps the Easter Rising article), but isn't terribly important to the life of Tom Clarke. Clarke wasn't part of the negotiations with Redmond nor the eventual vote on his nominees. His ultimatum and its effect on Clarke and the IRB contingent of the Volunteers is what's important here (and even that much isn't all that relevant here, but deserves some coverage). Much of this isn't mentioned at all in the articles on the other leaders of the Rising. For that reason all this article should get into about the Redmond situation is the controversy it caused and its effect on Clarke and Hobson's relationship. Details belong elsewhere. -R. fiend (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
This discussion is now moot unless you address the 1RR issue below, and the tone of you interaction. --Domer48'fenian' 20:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
The alleged violation has nothing to do with whether significant amounts of text in this article are better suited for other articles. Surely you can understand that. -R. fiend (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Planning the uprising[edit]

I have placed the "Unreferenced section" tag for obvious reasons, though I do not have an issue with the information. It should be easy enough to reference, and if there is a problem leave a note on my talk page and I'll do it first chance I get. --Domer48'fenian' 22:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced the tag, unexplained removal. --Domer48'fenian' 18:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I have replaced the tag, as it has a reasonable purpose and logic for being there. --Domer48'fenian' 19:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
And what exactly is that purpose? -R. fiend (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

1RR violation[edit]

This article is subject to 1RR as you are no doubt aware, All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related. This edit here and this one here constitute two reverts. Please self revert. --Domer48'fenian' 19:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Your actions are becoming disruptive, this edit here is less than helpful. Address your violation of 1RR and let us proceed to improve the article. --Domer48'fenian' 19:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no 1RR violation. I removed an irrelevant sentence tacked on to the end of a section. Nothing to do with the template. Besides, I know nothing about any 1RR rule. -R. fiend (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
You know about it now, and as you have clearly made two reverts, one hereand the second one here so please self revert. This edit here was also clearly disruptive and should also be replaced.--Domer48'fenian' 20:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
There. It is now a different version, as a change has been made. -R. fiend (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
You are simply being tendentious with these edits here and here and I suggest you stop. You are flouting the restrictions, and good faith is wearing thin. --Domer48'fenian' 20:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I'm doing something called "improving the article" by removing a good faith but quite useless edit. If you think the addition I removed is important to the article, please explain why and I'll take it under advisement; perhaps it could be added somewhere, but it should be justified and incorporated into the text rather than tacked on inelegantly. If you don't think it adds anything to the article then why are we having this discussion? -R. fiend (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
You are well aware of 1RR.--Domer48'fenian' 20:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Really? You expect something posted on my talk page over 2 years ago (which I didn't give much thought to then) to be something I still remember now? Besides, you'd be hard pressed to call a completely unrelated edit a revert. -R. fiend (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

In any case, if this really was a "revert" then the 2 versions in question should look exactly the same. They do not, ergo, even if making 2 non-related edits was technically a revert, that is not what I did. Furthermore, the even if all that was not true, and I reverted to the same version of the article by removing related edits, that would still be 1 edit and 1 revert to that edit. So I did not exceed 1 revert under any interpretation of the rule. -R. fiend (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I have raised the matter here, thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 22:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Some major rewriting needed[edit]

I notice that significant sections of this article seem to be taken word for word from the Irish documentary Television program 1916 Seachtar na Cásca (link:[5]). This needs to be fixed. -R. fiend (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the copyvio was worse than I thought, and basically encompassed the entire article, so I reverted to a 2011 version. I'll work a bit on improving it. -R. fiend (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Where he was from[edit]

This constant chopping and changing between "from Dungannon, County Tyrone" and "from England" is silly and pointless. More to the point, it's disruptive. Let's just leave the lead saying he was Irish, and the following section saying he was born in England and grew up in Dungannon. Scolaire (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

President of the Irish Republic?[edit]

A relatively recent RTE documentary whose name I forget, but which contained quite a lot of criticism of Patrick Pearse, had one or two contributors implying that Clarke was President of the Irish Republic (during the Rising he was allegedly pointed out as president to some Republican visitor to the GPO, while shortly after the Rising somebody else was quoted as angrily demanding to know who had decided to say that Pearse was its leader). Also (though the documentary doesn't mention this), in the list of ranks given earlier in this Talk page, Pearse is listed as Commander-In-Chief, but nobody is listed as President. And also (though again the documentary doesn't mention this), in the signatures on the Proclamation, Clarke is shown alone at top centre, precisely where you get the signature of John Hancock, President of the Continental Congress, on the American Declaration of Independence. (By contrast, Pearse is listed without any special prominence in the middle of the left-hand column). Of course, the only Reliable Source I currently have for any of this is the afore-mentioned RTE documentary (whose name I forget), but others may know of other reliable sources mentioning more of this. But if somebody can find such sources, or if they can find the name of the RTE documentary, then some of these matters should probably be at least mentioned in the article (as we are supposed to mention all significant RS views, while making it clear if they are minority views). As for why Pearse has been given the top job by history, that's a speculative matter, though Pearse's biographer Ruth Dudley Edwards, a Reliable Source, tends to say things like that he was a great self-publicist; there may or may not be other Reliable Sources that suggest that it may have suited Britain, Irish Home Rulers, and others, to have Pearse as the leader so as to be able to point to Pearse's poem about kissing and/or wanting to kiss a schoolboy (see denunciation of the poem here, and lengthy debate about the poem here), much as the same people were anxious to 'prove' that Roger Casement was gay, though, if so, it's unclear why Casement got so much publicised flak, while Pearse's poem seemingly got little or no attention until recently (though I guess it's just possible that it got more publicity long before I was born)). Tlhslobus (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

It's true that Clarke's signature was above everyone else's on the Proclamation, but as against that, leaflets that were put out during the Rising were signed, "P. H. Pearse, Commanding in Chief the Forces of the Irish Republic, and President of the Provisional Government" (see here; see also this discussion on whether, or in what order, they actually signed). Also, it was Pearse who read out the Proclamation on Easter Monday morning. The main source for Clarke being chosen as president is Kathleen Clarke, in Revolutionary Woman. She says that the night the Proclamation was drafted he told her that he was the first signatory. "I said, 'That means that you will be first President.' 'Yes', he said, 'that is what it means.'" (Clarke, Kathleen (1991). Revolutionary Woman: Kathleen Clarke, 1878-1972: An Autobiography. Dublin: O'Brien Press. p. 69. ISBN 0862782457. ) Later, she says that when the prisoners were released in June 1917 she met Seán McGarry at the railway station and he said to her, "Who the hell made Pearse President?" (p. 144) The thing about Kathleen Clarke, of course, is that she wanted to maximise her role – and therefore her husband's role – in the revolution. Plus, she obviously didn't like Pearse. Historians haven't gone with her version. Here is Diarmaid Ferriter, one of the the foremost historians of the period, reporting Kathleen's view without in any way endorsing it.
Ruth Dudley Edwards was the first person to publicly question Pearse's sexuality. It wouldn't have been a thing in 1916. The British authorities didn't give job descriptions to any of the leaders; they didn't even distinguish the seven signatories from the other people that were executed. It was the Irish media, especially the Catholic Bulletin, that hailed Pearse as the leader of the Rising.
Scolaire (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your highly informative reply, Scolaire. In order to inform readers who may have had similar doubts to mine, I think your view of the matter, suitably referenced, needs to at least briefly appear both in this article (something like 'Most historians do not accept his widow Kathleen's claim that ...'), and (if Pearse is not already called President in these articles) in related ones such as Easter Rising, Patrick Pearse, and at least the About templates in President of Ireland, President of the Irish Republic, and Irish heads of government since 1919 (yes, I know he's pre-1919, hence the About template). If you don't do this yourself, I may (or may not) try later, though I suspect you are less likely to make mistakes in this area than me. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Or has this been tried and failed before, perhaps explaining why Pearse is currently not described as President in those articles (except here in the Tom Clarke article, and without citation)?Tlhslobus (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
To answer your last question first, I seem to recall that there was some controversy eight or ten years ago, with some editors not wanting to say that Pearse was president. That's probably why it was left out. I've added the info about Pearse to his article and the Rising article, and the info about Kathleen to this article. It's not worth more than a single short sentence in this article per WP:UNDUE, and it would be undue weight to add it to the other articles at all. I would disagree with adding anything to the About templates of other articles. About is not meant to be a laundry list of things that might conceivably be related to the article topic, and in any case there is no President of the Irish Republic (1916) article that you could link to in the template. Thanks for bringing this up; it was definitely worth doing. Scolaire (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)