Talk:Patrick Pearse

Article name
I know that this has been discussed before but he is most commonly known as Pádraig Pearse. For example Mr Harrington the golfers article name is Pádraig. Also Eamon de Valera's article title is spelt the Irish way. Mobile mundo (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * If you look up "patrick pearse" on Google Books you will see that all the major works on Pearse use this name. Even if you look up "pádraig pearse", you will see that some of the books it brings up have "Patrick Pearse" in the title. Traditionally, "Pádraig" was more used colloquially, but I'm not sure that's still the case today. Note, by the way, that there is no documented instance of Pearse himself using the hybrid version, unlike Pádraig Harrington. Scolaire (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Emmett claim
, you've been reverted by two different editors now, please don't get into an edit war. The claim you're inserting is WP:UNDUE and unencyclopedic and if you could get consensus for inclusion, you'd need more than a reference from a single newspaper article. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

In what way is there "undue weight"? There is literally only a sentence about the claim.195.22.229.22 (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Undue in that there is no mention whatsoever of this claim anywhere else. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Inclusion, absent evidence, is unencyclopedic and undue. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Considering you are referencing the Sagan Standard I presume you are talking about the claim that Pearse was a necrophile and not the claim that Professor Elliot said these things. I do not understand how the perceived ridiculousness of a claim is grounds for exclusion. Wikipedia has an article on Holocaust denial and the Reptilians, which are obviously incorrect, so why not add this? I think considering the claim was made in a published book by an academic historian and received coverage in the Irish Independent (a major newspaper) it would be silly not to include it simply because you do not personally believe what she is saying is true.195.22.229.22 (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm just going straight to SPI. Scolaire (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

So no objections then I take it?195.22.229.22 (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Objections have been outlined above. Your argument has failed to convince the three editors thus far who've reverted you. Revert again and you'll be blocked for breaching the 1RR restriction in place on this article, which you're now aware of. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You provided an objection and I in turn provided a counter-objection which you have yet to respond to. I wonder why...... 195.22.229.22 (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * [[Image:DoNotFeedTroll.svg|Deny...]]

Psychbiography
As a consequence of the increasing popularity of psychobiography a paper written by psychologists in UCD has been written about Patrick Pearse. The information could be added to the article. http://sahjournal.com/index.php/sah/article/view/51 74.85.157.51 (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Pedophilia and Pearse
As it stands now in the reputation section we only have opinions of the "Pearse was a pedo" camp. I tried to introduce balance into the article by giving the other side of the debate. It is important we do so because it gives a false impression there is a historical consensus that Pearse was pedo and for balance purposes. Anyways I did this and Jamez42 reverted me saying this has been discussed on the talk page before. I have just looked and do not see any such discussion saying no balance should be introduced and that we should not give both sides of the debate, so I ask should it be included? I believe so for the reasons given above. Please give your point of view.185.64.16.117 (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Section for pedophilia and aspergers accusations. It's the first one. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Jamez42, the views expressed there seem to be that there should not be a seperate wikipedia section for the "pedophilia quesiton", not that balanced coverage of historical opinions should not be included/are to be avoided. If you disagree could you please quote where in that section such a view is expressed? Thanks.185.64.16.117 (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should get the attention of the user in question and he can settle what his viewpoint is. .185.64.16.117 (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What I said to Apollo The logician was, "If you want to add a similarly brief sentence on the Fitzgerald/Walker theory [specifically the theory that he had Asperger's] it might be no harm, though bear in mind that it is much less mainstream than the sexuality question." A short sentence about the Asperger's was indeed added at the end of the section. What I was (and am) concerned about is that the section should not be blown up into a TLDR discussion of the pros and cons of the idea that Pearse was attracted to young boys, as it was ten years ago or even later. What you added was relatively lengthy and quote-heavy; but I do agree that if respected academics disagree with what is a relatively recent consensus, it merits a brief statement of the fact in the section. The Independent is a reasonable source for what it says in the Fitzgerald & Walker book (although it would be better if someone could get the book out of the library and read what it actually says). Your other source is an RTÉ documentary, apparently True lives: P.H. Pearse; fanatic heart (2001), but unfortunately the link is to a YouTube video that was not posted by them or authorised by them, so it is a copyright vilolation and can't be used as a citation. Can you tell me at what time in the programme Sissons made the remark you quoted? It would be useful to know the context. Bottom line: opposing points of view should be stated, though given proper weight. Your edit was a reasonable one, but it could do with tightening up. Scolaire (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Scolaire, it's 42 minutes in. 185.64.16.117 (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added back the content, minus the quotes and – I hope – better phrased. I didn't add back the Aidan Beatty quote, because it's not clear whether he's actually saying Augusteijn's conclusion is wrong. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.  Scolaire (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)