User talk:Scolaire/Archive 5

Martin McGuinness dispute
I would like to invite you to participate in a discussion over whether to use "deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland" or "Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland" in the infobox on Martin McGuinness, because that article's editing history shows you to be a major contributor. The discussion can be found here: Talk:Martin McGuinness. HonouraryMix (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't take it to heart, Scolaire, but that matter is plain silliness. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know about silliness. It's not important to me - I only joined the discussion because I was asked.  But users with Gaelic usernames fighting battles on behalf of the Queen's English is not only silly, it's damned irritating.  Scolaire (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I contributed for the same reason as youself. I don't think we need to excuse ourselves from discussions on account of us both having Irish-language usernames. I don't believe that other editors find it irritating. The purpose of our being here is to write an encyclopedia and are both entitled to point out grammatical errors on the en.wiki regardless of our choice of language for username. We are, as you put it, both native speakers of "Queen's English" after all. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * We may both be English speakers, but we don't seem to speak the same language! I never said that you or I should excuse ourselves from discussion, and I can't see why you'd be embarrassed to be Irish.  Scolaire (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, I should just better choose which side I "fight" on? ;-)
 * That the "d" in "deputy First Minister" should be a small one was something I was not aware of - but, now that I am, it is a point of view that I share. At a certain point though common sense has to kick in, such as the realisation that on Wikipedia we use sentence case for elements like that one in infoboxes. That sabres would be rattled over it and the small "d" would be so jealously guarded - that I find embarrassing. It's that step too far when making a point. It seems to happen so often with "Irish" topics and "Irish" editors, it's just embarrasing. I don't think it does the "Irish" point of view much benefit in the eyes of other editors. I think it taints the "Irish" point of view with a sense of exaggeration and so makes it difficult for other editors to appreciate what is genuine from from what is exaggerated. That's disappointing for me since the "Irish" point of view is my point of view also.
 * I just think we come away looking silly (regardless of whether the "Irish" point of view "wins" or not). That I find embarrassing. That my two euro cents anyway.
 * But small "d" it is. I'm not going to expell energy on that sort of stuff anymore. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough! But do you really think the Irish are weirder than the English when it comes to big Ds and little Ds?  No need to answer that btw.  Scolaire (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Please strike your comment on Talk:Martin McGuinness to the effect that I had "conceded the small d two days ago". The substance of my position was that a small "d" is correct but that we use sentence case for elements such as that on Wikipedia an so in that instance it should be capitalised.

It is vexing to have one's comments manipulated in such a way and is a deterrent to discussion when one has to fear that comments made may be manipulated in such a way. It is a common practice among some editors but I am very disappointed that you would it. (Adds: can't think of another word, but agree that "disappointed" sounds patronising/blackmail-ish - that's not how I meant it) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Please strike your comment in relation to me. Thank you. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Go up six lines: "But small 'd' it is." That's what I linked to.  And don't give me "disappointed".  That kind of attempted emotional blackmail is even more irritating than English lessons, even supposing that having your respect was important to me.
 * The point of my remark, anyway, was that you had the good sense not to go on fighting over something so trivial. It now seems you have less sense than I ever imagined.  Scolaire (talk) 09:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Guys, please stop it, you are two of the more sensible editors on these pages and there is no need to fall out. -- Snowded  TALK  09:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. That's not very clear from it though. It sounds as if I conceded the point (i.e. "finally admit or agree that something is true") whereas in reality I just walked away. If you could clarify that, I would be grateful.
 * And I agree with Snowded. No need to fall out. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. And I never stay mad for long :-)  Scolaire (talk) 11:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sound. Thanks. And I "concede" you didn't mean it that way I thought :-P --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The Geraldines 2
Hi Scolaire. Are you still interested in working on the Geraldines? I've created quite a few articles on various Fitzgeralds.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid the answer is still the same: yes, but I don't know when. Scolaire (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, when you get the chance, take a look at my articles and see what you think of them. I think Iv'e written about 10 Fitzgerald articles. Cheers, Scolaire and thanks for your swift reply.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Strawpolls, strawmen etc
I think Elonka is doing her best here, she isn't immersed in the detail (hence seeing it as leadership). However she will take action against disruptive editors and is very persistent and patient so we should be doing our best to help her here. -- Snowded TALK  08:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am doing my best to help her. Anything I say is not intended as a put-down, only to try to make her see the illogicality of her position.  She needs to understand that the consequences of her proposal are exactly what I've said: multiple polls/RfCs stretching on indefinitely.  By the way, technically there are no disruptive editors in this.  Any editor is entitled to post as often as they please at any length they please, as long as it is relevant to the article and they are civil.  Policies and guidelines tend to favour those editors because if you don't respond every time, you are refusing to engage in discussion.  That's more or less what Elonka is saying here.  I don't doubt that she is persistant and patient, but the effect of that is that I have to come back to Talk:Sinn Féin several times a day, every day, when what I really want to do is forget about it and get on with something useful.  Scolaire (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, just making a point on how it might be perceived. I think you are wrong on the disruptive point however.  I have seen editors blocked for lengthy periods for persistently raising the same point time and time again.  Sorry to have put this half way up the page by the way, I was trying to keep subjects together.  Preference noted for the future.-- Snowded  TALK  08:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Poll on the issue of Irish RU flag
You are receiving this message as you previous participated in a Irish rugby flag related discussion (WP:RUIRLFLAG). There is an ongoing discussion which may interest you here and a poll which may provide a definite answer on the matter :Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union Gpeilon (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sufficiently involved to take part in any "Custer's Last Stand". If the poll gets a response from the wider rugby community - which doesn't look likely right now - I'll consider taking part then.  Scolaire (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Flags
Morning, Scolaire - Would you be OK with the proposed rewrite of that flags section being added to the MOS? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have a specific problem with it, but the whole flag issue is obviously both complex and emotive, and I'm not sufficiently interested in it to learn the complexities, or to take a position. In other words, I'll pass, thanks.  Scolaire (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No prob. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Call for consensus/conclusion to current Ireland rugby union team icon
Hello, I am contacting you because you have been an active participant in the recent discussion on icon to be used for Ireland rugby union. I have tried to summarise the many strands and come to a conclusion based on what I perceive the consensus to be in this section - Summary of Ireland Flag discussion and suggested consensus conclusion. To move the issue to a conclusion I am asking all participants who have signed the discussion to read my summary and comment on the validity of the approach I have advocated, before the issue goes cold. I am keen that the enormous efforts of all contributors results in a tangible conclusion on this occasion.Kwib (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Big Dunc
Scolaire, have you seen what's happened?. Big Dunc has retired from Wikipedia. Another good editor leaving the project; what's this place coming to?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know why he did that. I certainly didn't see any signals beforehand.  Scolaire (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope he's not ill or having personal problems.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. Look at this edit to Domer's page.  Looks like there's a general scaling down of activity.  Scolaire (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Aint that Domer48's postings? GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. Domer is editing at a very reduced rate, and BigDunc says he's retired.  Coincidence?  I don't think so.  Scolaire (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you implying one is a sock of the other? Or that they depend on each other's support (mild meat puppetry?)  Or simply that one cannot continue without the other (some sort of weird warped wiki love?)?  --HighKing (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Scolaire (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I fear BigDunc's retirement may have something to do with this. I have emailed him and asked him to reconsider, if it is. Rockpock  e  t  19:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was wondering if something was said off-wiki. His departure certainly was abrupt.  And on the day before Mooretwin's block expired, too.  Scolaire (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope he does reconsider as he's a hard-working, and very astute editor. He's also very helpful; in point of fact he has given me a lot of assistance from the very first day I joined Wikipedia. It would be a great loss to Wikipedia were it to lose a veteran editor like Dunc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So someone who has had three blocks (yes only three count them, the rest were either overturned as incorrect or relating to the original block) and only one of them in the Troubles area is due for an indef block for their next indiscretion in the Troubles area? Makes perfect sense due to the current power-crazed atmosphere. 2 lines of K  303  14:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. But it rather reinforces the point how crazy their tit-for-tat reporting of each other is, since it will only come back to haunt them. Rockpock  e  t  17:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * BigDunc emailed me to explain the reason he decided to retire. Like ONiH suggests, I think he has just had enough of the judgment by block log (irrespective of whether the blocks were valid or ill-deserved). Hopefully, in time, he might be back. Rockpock  e  t  20:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Going back in time a bit
Re your comments here, you may be interested in the discussion at Talk:Seán Mac Stíofáin. Not sure what books you were referring to and haven't time to dig through mine for such a trivial point, but any help you can give will be appreciated. Thanks. 2 lines of K 303  14:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To be honest, as far as I can remember I was chancing my arm. I wasn't as scrupulous then about checking my sources before shooting my mouth off.  I'll try and contribute something to the discussion, but I don't know if I can do anything more than make up numbers.  You have some memory, though!  How were you able to find that?  Scolaire (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a good memory for things like that, it's just a shame it's no good for remembering to actually do things I have planned! 2 lines of K  303  14:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

History of Sinn Féin
Can you look at this edit, read over the discussion again, and see if you can understand what exactly the issue is that Domer48 has with the text. I can't understand if he is objecting to the text saying that the party is now simply called SF, or if he is disputing the 1983 date, or if he has some other issue. His explanations in the discussion are incoherent and he has refused to explain his recent edits. Grateful for any clarity you can bring. Mooretwin (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, Domer disputes the notion that the party was "known" as Provisional Sinn Féin over any defined period of time, be that 1970-1983 or any other interval of years. His view would be that it was only a label employed by certain journalists and authors, to the "mild irritation" of its members, and that the party has always been "known" as Sinn Féin.  On a wider view, Domer obviously views your insistence on this point, together with your indent to make lineage clear, as a continuation of your campaign to show that the current party is not the "true Sinn Féin", which was emphatically rejected in a straw poll on the Sinn Féin talk page.  Since the 'Leaders' section is also in the version of the Sinn Féin article that was found to have consensus, and since you haven't AFAIK added anything of substance to the History article otherwise, it is probably difficult for Domer to see your edits as anything other than the continuation of a POV war.
 * Please note that I am only responding to a request for an opinion here. I don't want to get dragged back into that discussion, and I don't want to hear your arguments or explanations.  Regards.  Scolaire (talk) 09:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not very clear at all what Domer48 is trying to achieve with those edits. Have you any suggestion for achieving consensus, or are the only options edit-warring or letting Domer48 have his way? PS. I think you're over-egging it to suggest (by implication) that there is "emphatic" consensus that the current SF is the "true SF". It would mean, for example, that you've changed your mind, since you entered the dispute aruging that no SF was the true SF, and even characterised the split as mitosis - which should mean that you support an even-handed treatment of the split. The "consensus" on the Sinn Féin article was merely that the current version (which is ambiguous) represented consensus and, of course, was only recognised after the earlier discussions had been archived, and the only editors left on the article were those supporting either ambiguity or the Provisional POV and rejecting the contrary sources. So there's really only a "consensus" for ambiguity, and based only on a minority of the editors. Mooretwin (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You know, I did say that I didn't want to be dragged back into the argument, and I specifically requested that you not bother me with your arguments. I will answer your questions/comments once, and then I will ask you again to drop it.
 * "It's not very clear at all what Domer48 is trying to achieve with those edits." I never said it was clear.  You asked me if I could shed some light on them, and that is what I attempted to do.
 * "Have you any suggestion for achieving consensus?". Yes - walk away!  The section is supposed to be a list of leaders.  Any and all edits that concern the origins, name or legitimacy of any party are irrelevant, and serve only to make a silly section sillier.  If the two of you just stop tinkering with it, then at some point it might be possible to re-write the section to say something useful.
 * I neither said nor suggested that there is "emphatic" consensus that the current SF is the "true SF". I said that your campaign to "prove" the converse was emphatically rejected. There is a consensus on the Sinn Féin page to leave things as they are (in the interests of even-handedness).  There is no reason to think that there is consensus for doing otherwise on the History page.
 * Your arguments re archiving of discussions, minority of editors etc. were fully taken into consideration when the 'consensus' poll was closed. The conclusion still was that the status quo represents the consensus of editors.  In light of that, your continued raising of the same questions on another page looks like an attempt to circumvent that consensus.
 * In conclusion, to the reader, neither Domer's edits nor yours demonstrably improve or disimprove the article. Anything that is directed towards advancing a POV, and not towards improving an article, does not interest me.  I have said all I can possibly say, and I will delete any further post on this subject without reading it.  Scolaire (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Map in sandbox
Hi, since you seem to be logged in now... Would you mind taking a look in my sandbox, do you think this map when done could be a replacement for File:Ireland early peoples and politics.gif? I will not be able to include all that information, but what's included will be readable (at least it is in my browser), and with active wikilinks. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Not too sure why you would want to replace that map. It looks fine to me.  If all you want to do is simplify, your version works well.  However, I wouldn't be inclined to go changing things.  "Southern Uí Néill" should not be changed to "MIDE (S. Uí Néill)", to my mind.  And I'm not crazy about abbreviating "northern" and "southern" either.  Active wikilinks might be good, but the linked articles need lot of improving, and some of them need to be created.  Scolaire (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason I would want to replace the .gif-map is that it is practically unreadable for me in thumbversion, might be my browser/screen - in that case it isn't a problem. There are various very simplyfied map already - but I tried to find a way to make a make readable and conveying as much info as possible. Comparing User:Finnrind/Historiography#Political_landscape_c._800 with Ireland 800–1169 I think the first is more informative, but the latter much prettier... Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Aplologies. I logged off after my first reply, because it was coming up to midnight here. The image is perfect on my browser (19"/48cm screen).  I guess that's why I didn't understand your problem.  Scolaire (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to apologise :) If there isn't a problem, so much the better - and I'm glad I asked your advice before I spent more time trying to fix something that didn't need fixing. But just to be sure: When looking at the .gif map as displayed in the article (300px) - are you able to read all the labels? At my 17" screen I can read labels like "CONNACHT" but not "Cenél Conaill" or "Dál Riata", and the for the smallest labels "Cenél nEnnae" etc it's even hard to identify that there's something written there at all. Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I can read "Dal Riata" on the current one better than "Síl nÁedo Sláine" on your one - that's because of the wikilink, I presume. Also on your one, I get a total overlap between the "Fiatach" of Dál Fiatach and the "Ecach" of Uí Echach Cobo.  Thing is, the image on the article is only supposed to give the big picture anyway.  That's why there's a link to the file (and another link to the full resolution image).  I'm not saying you should abandon your image altogether, but I don't really think it'll work well unless you strip it to the absolute bare bones.  Scolaire (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's good then - and nothing but an honest answer would be useful ;). I'm leaving the image label trick for now, as long as the current map is working then no reason to spend so much time fiddling with it. Thanks for your help anyway. Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

tea party
Hello, You mentioned something about the section headings. I tried to answer, but real life distracted me and I didn't get back to finish. Yes, you are right that the section headings should be simple. Right now there's a dispute about subsection headings. I mentioned the fact that the history section at one time was lower down in the article and the composition and views of the movement were first because some people only want that information. They don't want to wade through the history, they just want the gist of the movement. I thought that might be what you were thinking so I tried to address that. Malke 2010  21:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Btw, I'm from Kilkenny originally. Where are you from? Malke  2010  21:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the trouble to reply to me personally. No, I'm not one of those readers who can't be bothered with history. History is my passion. That's why I'd like to see you and the others collaborating to write a History section that is not only accurate and neutral, but readable as well. I believe very strongly that the text is everything; when you get the text right, the section headings write themselves. I am Dublin born and bred (and buttered). I have never lived anywhere else. Scolaire (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I love Dublin. You should comment more on the history section.  It would be great to have someone with your interests offer some suggestions on how to structure the history section, including the subsection titles, etc.  Right now the article is in a lot of flux, but RoyGoldsmith is doing a pretty good job of trying to organize it. Malke  2010  15:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

More sandbox stuff...
I've started thinking about what could be done with Viking Ireland, and drafting a little bit at User:Finnrind/Viking_Ireland - just cut&paste from other articles pluss me making "notes to self", but you may be able to identify the frame I'm thinking of. Care to have a look and offer some initial feedback? Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Boy, that is thorough! Yes, it will fill the bill nicely.  I'm not sure it needs a separate "Viking" section explaining what a viking was (especially that "somewhat confusingly" paragraph from the Viking article), but that is a very minor thing.  Otherwise I'd say you've pretty well nailed it.  Fair dues to you for wanting to put that amount of work in.  Scolaire (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but that's not thorough, that's just a skeleton. I plan to keep it in the sandbox for a while and expand every now and then - I like distractions too much to work constructively on just one project. Speaking of distractions; Not sure if you're into more modern history as well, but what do you make out of Gaelic Revival? The article was certainly not what I thought it would be (see talk). Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wee-erd! Looks like somebody went off on a tangent in March 2008 and then an IP went to town on that in May and September the same year.  There have been periodic expansions since then, like this one - always by IPs, always original research.  It hasn't been picked up because very few articles link to it, and none that people working on Irish history are involved with.  I've never seen so many sub-sub-subsections in my life.  The headings are tiny!  I would be very tempted to simply revert to the version of 27 January 2008 (see my first diff) and start building on that.  After all, it's been tagged since this time last year.  Unsourced material can be removed at any time.
 * By the way, when I said "thorough" I meant your plan, not the current text. You've included topics that never would have occurred to me.  Scolaire (talk) 07:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't oppose such a revert, but there must be some useful stuff in a few of those subsections, maybe a split? The part about the Gaelic Revival proper (19th Century) could quite easily be expanded into a decent stub I think. Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If it was split into a separate article, I think I woulf AfD it straight away. Then anyone who was opposed to deletion would have the option of doing the cleanup and finding some sources, but they'd have to do it fast.  An alternative, per JWB on the talk page, would be to merge it into Irish language, either in the Current Status section or in a new 20th Century Revival section.  But that would require editing it down by at least 90%, and that's not a job I'd fancy.  Either way, it doesn't belong where it is.  The January 2008 version was a decent stub.  If a few more history articles linked to it, it might attract more editors and get itself expanded into quite a nice article.  Scolaire (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See your point. Splitting just to AfD it seems a waiste of everyones time. I came there with to intentions: to learn more about the 19th Century movement and if possible to add some based on the reading I had just done for Gaelic Journal. I didn't learn anything, and I wasn't really tempted to add anything either. I'd be willing to help expand a proper article, but not to clean up/find citations for the current. I didn't feel like adding links to it either in the present state - if other editors feel like me, that may be one of the reasons nobody has ever done anything serious about it. Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts...
...on the Tea Party related articles. No, I do not think you are pushing a POV, and I apologize if any of my responses left you with that concern. Your proposed edits have been generally good. I would like to redirect your attention to a question I asked you that has thus far gone unanswered:
 * Regarding your observation that, "Other incidents are dealt with in the other article...", is that true? I've seen efforts to remove related content from both articles. Is there a consensus as to which article should contain the related content outside of the March 20 events?

The content to which I refer is about other incidents of confirmed racism and other bigotry, abuse, anti-semitism, threats of violence and other generally poor behavior. Some of it isn't specific to Tea Party protests, so it would be more appropriate in the Movement article. However, I'm trying to avoid ending up with an incident-list; instead I was hoping to develop a concise but comprehensive section detailing the struggles the movement is having with public perception. There are a lot of this sort of observations popping up now. I'm not a big fan of criticism sections, and even less so of lists of negative incidents, so I am trying to find an alternative. The reason I bring this up now is because the solution may render your wrangling with those two paragraphs moot. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, you're reading too much into what I say. "Other incidents are dealt with in the other article" was a simple statement of fact.  Tea Party protests has stuff about March 16 and March 22, but Tea Party movement only has March 20.  Hence my section heading.  I don't want to dictate what should or should not be dealt with in the future.  Your idea looks like a good one and I look forward to seeing the results.  Regards,  Scolaire (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

On a Wikibreak
I don't expect to log on again for a while. Feel free to leave me a message, but be aware that I may not see it. Scolaire (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party Movement
Please go to the TPM talk page and vote for a new title for the section on homophobia, racism, etc. Thanks. Malke 2010  19:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Could I possibly pick your brains?
Since your wikibreak is similar to my retirement...

I've come to a tricky part of the Easter Rising re-write, specifically one part that I knew would cause me problems, namely the alleged "blood sacrifice".

At present in the Legacy section there's noted revisionist Foster being cited for the "blood sacrifice", but from what I can tell the term has been common currency long before he used it. Do you have any idea who first came up with it?

Secondly, I was planning on moving it into the pre-Rising part of the article. What I was planning to do was put one point of view across that the leaders chose to go ahead with the Rising knowing that no matter what they did the Volunteers were going to be suppressed, disarmed and the ringleaders arrested. Then immediately put the second point of view across that they went ahead with it for the symbolic "blood sacrifice". However...

The sources seem to be a little bit divided on exactly whose idea the "blood sacrifice" was. It's generally attributed to Pearse obviously, but it also seems to be attributed to the leaders as a group. Either way I think it's something that's best dealt with in detail in Pearse's article, and a sentence or two at most in the Rising article itself. I was thinking something along the lines of "Some [I'm loathe to use the word some, but I don't want either that sentence of the preceding one about "suppressed, disarmed and arrested" to become long laundry lists of who thinks what] historians have stated the leaders, in particular Pearse were planning a "blood sacrifice" etc etc". That seems to me to cover both bases about whose idea it was?

That's about it really. I know it's going to be one of the potential trouble spots involving certain editors, so thought I'd get some input from you first to see what you think the best way of handling it is. Any other suggestions or ideas welcome too obviously. Thanks. 2 lines of K 303  13:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Dorothy Macardle used the phrase in The Irish Republic in 1937: "Apart from that, these leaders — writers, thinkers, and teachers, three of them poets — were convinced of the necessity for blood sacrifice to give life to the nation's cause" (Google Books). I had a quick look now at my 1968 edition and I can't find it, but I know it's there because it struck me very forcibly when I first saw it.  Anyway, it obviously had no negative connotations for her or for her readers of the day.  What the revisionists of the 1970s did was not to invent the phrase but to give it its modern Dennis Wheatley-esque construction.  Both in the context of the Great War, and in the context of the nineteenth-century risings, it would have been a perfectly natural concept.  It would have had a certain Catholic mystic overtone - not surprising in a movement of Catholics and deep thinkers - but no more than an overtone, and the people who have married the phrase with Pearse's religious poetry have distorted its meaning completely.  Probably deliberately.  Saying "some historians have stated..." only concedes their ghoulish interpretation of the phrase.  It would be better to clarify the phrase and then allow other editors to add "some historians have interpreted this..." if they choose.  Here is Macardle, talking about November 1914, not April 1916 (p. 119):

"The attempt might end in failure, in the execution of the leaders...and a régime of coercion more crushing than any that the Irish people had yet known...but the leaders of the Republican Brotherhood believed that a Rising, even if it met with immediate failure, would be justified in the ultimate result."
 * The idea of the leaders had always been that inspiring the people by rising in arms and being prepared to die was the important thing, and not the prospect of complete military success. I see no problem in simply stating that this idea, or concept, or philosophy, has been referred to as "blood sacrifice".  Full stop.  If somebody subsequently adds an alternative view, it will be seen as an alternative view, not as the mainstream or obvious view.  Scolaire (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, meant to get back to you sooner. Would I be right in thinking that the phrase itself isn't the real bone of contention (since you would hardly consider Macardle and Foster to be bed-fellows) but the differing meanings of the phrase? 2 lines of K  303  13:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be my take on it. BTW I saw it recently in P.S. O'Hegarty, The Victory of Sinn Féin (1924), so it is very old indeed.  Scolaire (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Tabbed browsing the new buttons
Hi, to use tabs on the new buttons right click slightly below the text between the bottom of the button and the text. ~ R . T . G  12:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice one! Thank you.  Scolaire (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)