Talk:Easter Rising

Stewardship

WP:SHEPHERD should be in effect here. For example, the article currently contains no mention at all of the Howth gun-running. All mention of this, including a link to the article in question was removed here stating RMV of source and relevant information. The source was inadequate, being made for a primary educational context. Information corresponding was removed but will be reinstated if relevant and covered by reliable sources. You'd hope with all the other references they've added (while ignoring all the standard books covering the Rising.....) they might have come across this incident at some point? Some, or perhaps anyone competent, might consider that people planning an armed uprising imported 1,500 rifles a rather important fact that needs to be in the article.... FDW777 (talk) 10:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Sources for the direct connection between the two? It was after all an event that took place about two years earlier. The Banner talk 11:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

A very quick search gave me this TCD page. The gunrunning is dealt with in detail in Charles Townshend's Easter 1916: The Irish Rebellion (2006, pp. 54–6). I can't imagine anyone familiar with the Rising not knowing that the Howth rifles played a significant part. Scolaire (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I tend to ask for sources instead of believing the obvious. :-) The Banner talk 17:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I am also alarmed with the way this article is being edited by DMT Biscuit, deleting large chunks at a time while adding multiple minor anecdotes (with citations, of course). I initially thought I'd let them finish their edits before commenting or editing myself, but it has just gone on relentlessly. Some SHEPHERDing is definitely called for, I think, but I don't think I'd be up to the task. Scolaire (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I am indeed uneasy with the edits of DMT Biscuit but knowledge is insufficient to judge them. Do you have a proposal which details should be cut? The Banner talk 17:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I would have to go back through more than 250 edits, so I'm afraid the answer is no. I spend very little time on Wikipedia nowadays. Scolaire (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

In honesty, my own thoughts are somewhat mirrored by several noted above. That some of the recent edits (such as this removal of cited content which excised the "Frongoch/ollscoil na réabhlóide/War of Independence" connection as "trivia") gave me pause. To the extent that I restored it - only to see it removed again as somehow "redundant". Similarly, I noted that despite inviting other editors to revert content deletions "if disagree" when other editors did revert because they disagreed, DMT Biscuit just blanked the same content again. This culling of content seemed more than a little aggressive to me (and the rejection of others intervening edits somewhat concerning) to the extent that, similar to Scolaire, I'd intended to review the article/changes as a whole - once the bullish editing was finished. But the changes just seemed to keep coming - Weeks becoming months, dozens of edits becoming hundreds. If DMT Biscuit is (hopefully) now finished (and genuine in their "take to talk if disagree" or "restore if disagree" invitations), then I'd certainly welcome the space/time for other editors to review what's been done.... Guliolopez (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the concerns raised by others here. It would be good to see some engagement from DMT Biscuit on the Talk page. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding this edit referred to by @Guliolopez:, I can see the merits of some of it, since the "ollscoil na réabhlóide" and Michael Collins is mentioned in the paragraph immediately below. And personally, I don't see the need to explain that prisoners were "the future Hollywood actor Arthur Shields" (a plain old "Arthur Shields" would to the job just as well, similarly "sportsman and referee Tom Burke". But of course if things like that are properly explained in edit summaries or by dropping a quick explanation on the talk page, everyone would understand a little better. FDW777 (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

"Executed" icon on infobox

In recent months, two separate editors have added the {{executed}} label to each of the Irish/rebel "commanders and leaders" entries in the infobox. In each case I have reverted these additions - on the basis of my reading of the previous discussions (in 2015 and in 2016 and again in 2017). Each of which seemed to indicate a consensus against the use of this icon. On the basis (as two editors summarised in the 2017 discussion) that "the icon is both ugly and unnecessary" and (to paraphrase) "its ugliness outweighs any info it imparts". I personally agree with these arguments and this apparent consensus. As, where applied to every member of that infobox section, the icon doesn't communicate much or differentiate the entries. And, certainly compared to conflicts/events where its use actually does represent a differentiator, its use here adds more "noise" than it does "signal". However, given that some editors have re-added it and as consensus can arise through editing, I'm re-opening this thread. Again. To see if it needs revisiting. Again. Guliolopez (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Paragraph on German aid

I added a paragraph on the German Bombardment of Yarmouth and Lowestoft as aid to the rebels. It was reverted as potentially dubious with a request to take it to the Talk page, so as requested...

In my contribution I cited the following as describing this:

- Castles of Steel, by Ian Massie

- The Zeppelin in Combat, by Douglas Robinson.

The page dedicated to the bombardment has linked it to the rising, based on Massie, for many years. I propose to restore the paragraph to the Easter Rising page with the following further citations:

- A Naval History of World War I, by Paul Halpern

- Fire over England, by H.G. Castle

I've had a very quick look on Google Books and found online refences such as (p126): https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/1916/m6QyEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=lowestoft+%22easter+rising%22&pg=PA126&printsec=frontcover

It's not too hard to find other sources online, but the four books I mention are well respected sources on the naval\air war — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleftico (talk • contribs) 19:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the bombardment happened, but whether it was part of the Easter Rising or even planned specifically as aid to the Rising, as opposed to consistent with the German Navy's own aims. None of the references provided so far appear to support the claim, and I note it doesn't appear to be claimed as such in any Rising-specific book. FDW777 (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi - based on the sources the raid does seem to have been intended to aid the rebels, or to allow the Germans to present it as aiding them. But I also think that, as you say, it was also consisitent with the German Navy's strategy in the North Sea.

The sources say the following...

"Scheers Lowestoft Plan was to deliver a hit and run raid on the English southeast coast timed to coincide with the rising of the German supported nationalists on Easter Sunday" Massie p558

"The operation was to coincide with the Easter Sunday Irish rebellion in Ireland" Halpern, p312-313

"On Easter Sunday, April 24, a rebellion broke out in Ireland. The German government endeavoured to support the revolt by sending thousands of captured Russian rifles, and dispatched the renegade Irish leader Sir Roger Casement to Tralee Bay in a submarine. As a diversion Scheer plannned to bombard the seaport of Lowestoft" Douglas, p155

"The main strategic objective was to exploit the British government's confusion caused by the unexpected Irish rebellion on 25th April" Castle, p124

I note the difference around dates, which I imagine relates to when the risng was expected to to occur and when it actually did.

Of course events in Dublin were paramount and these events peripheral.Kind Regards. Kleftico (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I just checked four of the main books on the Rising. Foy & Barton/McGarry/Townshend/Bunbury. None of them appear to even mention the bombardement. The quotes you have provided don't say the bombardment was part of the Rising, so don't justify a section titled German raid on eastern England, especially not with the claim The rebels requested further assistance from Germany which came in the form of a combined air and sea attack on eastern England by the Imperial German Navy, since the aid actually requested was arms and an expeditionary force in Ireland. FDW777 (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Thankyou for taking the trouble to check those sources and apologies for the delay in replying.

My opinion is that events in Ireland and the North Sea would have to have gone very differently for the raid to be of practical use to the rebels - so if reference to the raid is refenced in this article the section 'The Rising outside Dublin' isn't the best place for it.

I would counter-propose a passing sentence or two in the "Planning the Rising" section which already deals with German involvement and the requests for German expeditionary force. Kind Regards Kleftico (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

The best place for it would actually be in the Easter Rising#Build-up to Easter Week, as I did find a brief mention of the bombardment in Max Caulfield's book, however he frames it as being a diversion to increase the chances of arms being successfully landed. FDW777 (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Happy to do that - I've incorporated as best I can. I've used the two references from my original edit, including Robinson who, like Caulfield frames it as a diversionary raid. Happy to add the other two references (Halpern\Castle) but thought that might be overkill, esp if Caulfield were added. All the bestKleftico (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Sinn Féiners

I am removing a paragraph suggesting the "wrong" people ("Sinn Féiners") were blamed for the Rising. The Brisn Hanley article cited as supposed evidence for this in fact says the exact opposite, stating Most importantly, the term ‘Sinn Féiner’ was widely used to describe any radical nationalist. Hence the Irish Volunteers led by Eoin MacNeill after September 1914 were usually referred to by both the authorities and the public as the ‘Sinn Féin Volunteers.’ To most people a ‘Sinn Féiner’ was a rebel and in that sense 1916 was a ‘Sinn Féin rebellion.’ Thus, given the language used at the time ("Sinn Féin Volunteers" to refer to the MacNeill faction of the Volunteers, and "Sinn Féiners" to refer to any advanced nationalist whether a member of Sinn Féin or not), the "right" people were blamed for the Rising. FDW777 (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I was rather shocked to find that the "reflecting a popular belief" sentence was added by me in 2007 (I've done a lot of reading since then). However, the Hanley ref was not added until 2023. I am restoring the paragraph – suitably amended – because I think the fact that it was called the "Sinn Féin Rebellion", and that General Maxwell signalled his intention "to arrest all dangerous Sinn Feiners", including "those who have taken an active part in the movement although not in the present rebellion", are significant. Scolaire (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2026 (UTC)