Talk:Easter Rising/Archive 7

Stairs/steps
Contrary to popular belief and a recent edit, there are no steps outside the GPO. FDW777 (talk) 08:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:Easter Rising
I've taken the liberty of adding a "General" section at Easter Rising. I realise there are more articles that probably need to be added to it, so thought I'd mention it here so other editors are more aware and can make any changes they might want to. Thank you. FDW777 (talk)

Removed the new additions for now, but if anyone wants to discuss changes here or at the template's talk page is fine. I do think the template is a bit sparse. FDW777 (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Troops/soldiers
I've amended the majority of the uses of "troops" in the article to "soldiers", with the exception of when it was talking about cavalary, troop trains (soldier trains doesn't sound right) or direct quotes. This is due to troop referring to a unit of cavalry (and we do actually use it to refers to units of cavalry in the article), and I think it's confusing to use it to refer to units of cavalry as well as soldiers in general. I think it's better to try and use consistent terminology rather than alternating between "troops" and "soldiers" anyway (the article had a rough 50/50 split, including quotes). FDW777 (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I think you should revert that change to be honest. While a 'troop' does indeed refer to a cavalry unit, and 'trooper' is a cavalry soldier, the plural noun 'troops' does not refer specifically to cavalry. 'Troops' refers to bodies of soldiers. Hence it is better in this context than 'soldiers' which talks about individuals. The current edit reads badly in my opinion.


 * For instance, let's take this passage The rebel position at the South Dublin Union (site of the present-day St. James's Hospital) and Marrowbone Lane, further west along the canal, also inflicted heavy losses on British soldiers [This does not make sense now, units concerned (troops) suffered losses the soldiers didn't, they were killed or injured]. The South Dublin Union was a large complex of buildings and there was vicious fighting around and inside the buildings. Cathal Brugha, a rebel officer, distinguished himself in this action and was badly wounded. By the end of the week, the British had taken some of the buildings in the Union, but others remained in rebel hands.[97] British soldiers also took casualties [Again, this now makes no sense. Some soldiers became casualties, but it was their units that took casualties - again, troops is better here] in unsuccessful frontal assaults on the Marrowbone Lane Distillery


 * Jdorney (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I did it because of the sentence beginning Two troops of British cavalry. You say 'Troops' refers to bodies of soldiers, how does this tally with these uses?
 * 16,000 British troops (infobox)
 * The British troops, after taking some casualties
 * 1,269 troops in the city
 * hundreds of British troops
 * And so on. FDW777 (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It's simple enough. There are two uses of the word 'troops'. The more common use being the plural noun troops, meaning bodies of military, which has no singular but which can be used as an adjective e.g. 'troop trains'. This is extremely common in writing about military matters an in no way unusual in this article. The second use refers to a unit of cavalry; a 'troop', the infantry equivalent of which is platoon. Hence 'two troops of cavalry' i.e. two small units. (An individual cavalrymen can be called a trooper). There was really no problem with the previous wording, both uses were correct and in line with common usage. Here are some dictionary definitions to clarify   Jdorney (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Could you miss the point by any wider a mark? I'm not disputing that "troop" is a valid term for a unit of cavalry, or other soldiers. Neither am I disputing that "troops" is a valid term for any group of soldiers, not necessarily part of a unit. What I am saying in the uses in the article risk confusing a typical reader, and it's better to use consistent terminology. FDW777 (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The only potential confusion to any reader is the use of 'troops' for the two cavalry units. If you think that is confusing then you should change 'troops' to another word, e.g. 'small units'. But, again, substituting 'soldiers' for 'troops' throughout the article is a mistake and makes no sense. Jdorney (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Mac Diarmada or MacDermott?
I was in the process of standardising the names, only I see we've got five instances of MacDermott, two of Mac Diarmada and one of MacDiarmada, so it's not wholly clear what's best. As the article is at Seán Mac Diarmada (although that location has been disputed on that article's talk page) I think it's probably best to use that, it's also the name he used on the Proclamation. Any thoughts/objections? FDW777 (talk) 11:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Standardised to Mac Diarmada. Happy to discuss further if someone thinks it should be standardised to something different. FDW777 (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In gpo rising.jpg

Recall and Reappointment of Lord Wimborne as Lord Lieutenant - suggest date check
In the subsection Commission of Enquiry of section Aftermath, report published late June 1916, it is stated Lord Wimborne was recalled by Lloyd George, then reappointed as Lord Lieutenant in 1917, cited to a book without stating its page. Surely Lloyd George was not in any position to recall anyone from office in Ireland until he became Prime Minister to succeed Asquith in December of 1916: until early June 1916 he was Minister of Munitions, then succeeded Kitchener as War Secretary. I question the accuracy on chronological and jurisdiction grounds; if he did resign before December 1916, then the power of recall would have been in the hands of Asquith. (I don't dispute Lloyd George reappointing him because he was in PM office then.) I notice that in the list of Lord Lieutenants and the infobox of the article on Lord Wimborne his dates in office are presented as if he held it unbroken.Cloptonson (talk) 08:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Whoever added it didn't even have the title of the book right. I've fixed it. He was recalled (by Asquith), then re-appointed two months later. The post was vacant in between, so he held it unbroken in that sense. Scolaire (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)