This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Erskine Childers (author) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Erskine Childers (author) has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
September 19, 2023. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that novelist
Erskine Childers was an artilleryman in the British Army, a lieutenant in the Royal Navy, a major in the Royal Air Force, and a staff captain in the Irish Republican Army? | ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on November 24, 2007, November 24, 2008, November 24, 2009, November 24, 2010, November 24, 2012, November 24, 2015, November 24, 2016, November 24, 2017, November 24, 2018, and November 24, 2023. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have classified this article as a start due to its level of organisation and detail. Capitalistroadster 06:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Changed DSO to DSC - I've seen this mistake elsewhere. Removed "Soon Childers was regarded as a traitor not only by the British, but by the pro-Treaty Free State government in Dublin, which was under increasing pressure from Winston Churchill and the British government to take violent reprisal measures against the anti-treaty forces and their leaders." as the civil war had started, so pretty obvious. Red Hurley ( talk) 14:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
On the Main page, 23-24th of November, the pistol Childers was carrying when he was arrested was described as a revolver, where as in the article it is described as a small caliber automatic pistol. Clearly, they cannot both be correct. Handschuh- talk to me 02:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Adhering to the Wikipedia naming convention would have this article named "Erskine Childers", with the full name as a redirect page and given in the lead paragraph. I'm inclined to make the change, subject to other editors' thoughts. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 23:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
A recent edit duplicated some material, already included, regarding the Irish Convention. I've removed it, but that's not to say that the topic couldn't be expanded. I also need to get on with the Anglo-Irish Treaty, where Childers was also secretary, this time on the "other" side. This is an important episode and similarly needs to be covered in more detail. It's gradually rising to the top of my "to do pile", unless someone else has the inclination. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 14:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The article on Mary Childers give the year of her death as 1974, while this article gives it as 1964. It cannot be that both are correct. Snezzy ( talk) 17:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
There was not one incident which was responsible for Childers's conversion from loyal supporter of the British Empire to extreme Irish nationalist: a nationalist so intemperate that his opposition to compromise is sometimes credited with bringing about the Irish Civil War
This sentence is loaded with pov. First off Childers was a republican, secondly the use of the adjective 'extreme' is fatous, uneccessary and pov. The use of the adjective 'intemperate' is also pov and the idea that childers was in any way personally responisble for the civil war is actually civil war propaganda designed to justify his execution. It is unseemly in an encyclopedia. I'm editing this to something more sensible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.102.222 ( talk) 20:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The reference now includes the quotation and context for "extreme": there's no latitude for changing the material away from the reference. It's a synthesis, which isn't allowed. Once again: please by all means add other reliable sources with alternative interpretations (or, if you prefer, alternative "politics"), but don't just add your own interpretation without anything to back it up.-- Old Moonraker ( talk) 07:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors. I have just read this article and wanted to thank those of you who have clearly worked so hard to create a scholarly and well arranged piece. I have no specialist knowledge on the man or the period but I was taken aback by one small section, which I now see has been the subject of extensive discussion on this Talk Page.The section is at the start of the ‘Conversion’ section and currently reads: 'There was no single incident which was responsible for Childers's conversion from loyal supporter of the British Empire to extreme Irish nationalist: a nationalist so intemperate that his opposition to compromise is sometimes blamed for bringing about the Irish Civil War. Rather, there was a gradual awareness, later turning into a fanatical obsession.' I wanted, politely, to suggest as a ‘naïve ordinary reader’ the terms ‘extreme’, ‘intemperate’ and ‘fanatical’ seemed unencyclopedic to me and risk detracting from the otherwise scholarly and balanced tone of the article. Unhelpfully, I have no suggestions to make as to how this should be re-worded but would encourage those of you who have crafted such a good article to see if you can find a better choice of words. jb3ddd —Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I've checked the links complained of by User:WildBot, but they all seem to work. That's not to say that better targets couldn't be found. Any oversight and suggestions from other contributors on this? -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 12:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
We have "Childers smuggled in some guns "but" he was executed by the Free State government (my clumsy paraphrase and added emphasis). This possibly implies some presupposition; anyone mind if I make this an "and" instead ? Italics and WL for Asgard, at the same time. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 14:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I think that, with the recent improvements to his period as a TD, this article is within sight of WP:GA status. If there's any support, I'll submit it. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 06:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, that’s your opinion isn’t it. It’s not a fact. Or else it might be an amusing story which demonstrates that Childers’s views had irritated the new generation of top brass in the British Army so much that one of them had to be mollified with a grim joke about their impracticability (and black humour about one’s profession, much of which would sound shocking to outsiders, is hardly confined to generals). I am happy to accept your protestations of good faith but you are more likely to receive that courtesy if you first extend it to others – as opposed to making wholesale deletions of material from a topic on which I had already been more than cooperative about removing material like the Elgin Commission which is on reflection not directly relevant and on which discussion had ended (in so far as anything on Wikipedia ever ends) with OldMoonraker’s comment that “That looks about right now”, not to mention aggressive and dismissive phrases like “coat-racking” “barrack room banter” and the ill-judged claim that this section (covering a writing career which took up a decade of the subject’s life and brought him onto the fringes of the national stage) “should be the first to go”.
The bottom line is that as it stands at the moment the section consists of three short paras, much more accurate than before I started to work on it, and frankly rather more succinctly expressed than a lot of the rest of the article. I do not accept that it contains “puffery (which) detracts from where the focus should lie” or “a detailed treatise on cavalry tactics and the opinions of others”. It contains a single sentence explaining what the argument was about and another about how his views did not prevail, along with some other phrases from which the reader can infer that Childers’s views were not as necessarily correct as is sometimes supposed.
Richard Holmes, French’s biographer, has about 6 or 7 index references to Childers and includes some detail on Childers’s views on how the successful charge at Elandslaagte owed a lot to a curious set of coincidental circumstances (probably true), and how Childers felt the need to apologise for disagreeing publicly with Jonny French, the most celebrated cavalry commander in the world at the time. Now, all of that would meet your criterion about being relevant to Childers and his writings, so would you like me to post them in the article? No, thought not. Paulturtle ( talk) 00:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a deliberate redlink. I've had it here for quite a while now, in the hope that someone from milhist might be tempted to have a go, but I'm about to give in and try for myself. I've found enough material for a stub, at least. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 09:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
There has been a recent, and wholly valid, expansion in the part of the article dealing with War and the Arme Blanche, along with some useful L3 headers to break up some long sections. However, is the new paragraph following, dealing with deliberations of the Elgin Committee and a road to a cemetery perhaps named after the subject's cousin, really relevant? I suggest the application of "please be bold in deleting" from WP:TOPIC. As the guideline notes: this is particularly valid where the unrelated information has a natural home in another article. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 07:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Before I got to work on the section it basically said that Childers' views on the obsolescence of cavalry charges were clearly correct and the British Army refused to accept them because it would have meant admitting they were wrong - and cited as a source a 1970s book, written at a time when the reputation of British WW1 generalship was at its nadir. To quote Sir John French's biographer Richard Holmes "it's easy to chuckle", but there were reasons for their beliefs. Our ancestors may have been wrong about some things but they were no stupider than you or I. By all means trim the section a bit - the key point is that this was a matter of controversy at the highest levels of the British Army and tactical lessons are never as obvious as they appear with hindsight.
You are quite right, the cemetary would most likely have been named after H.C.E.Childers (which I confess hadn't occurred to me) but it is indicative that Erskine Childers' views had attracted enough attention to irritate one of the leading generals of the British Army (which Haig was, even then). I think it's an amusing story and it belongs here rather than in the Haig biog, where it would be too trivial to include.
I cleaned up some of the Irish Home Rule stuff as well, as this was an electoral albatross for the Liberal Party and they most certainly didn't have a mandate for it in 1906 - I was tempted to mention Rosebery's infamous description of Home Rule as "fly-blown phylacteries" in 1900, but that would have attracted the same off-topic objections. It wasn't really the issue in 1910 either, the issues were tariffs and stripping the Lords of their veto to get Lloyd George's budget through. Paulturtle ( talk) 09:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Have moved the Elgin Committee to Elgin's own biog, as that's probably not directly relevant unless we have evidence that Childers testified. Paulturtle ( talk) 15:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a very informative article. The major downside for me was that, in trying to understand Childers spectacular if not unique conversion, the article jumps around his life. From sailing in 1898 to sailing the Asgard in 1914, to the Home Rule Convention in 1917 back to his marriage in 1903, and so on. 79.97.64.240 ( talk) 12:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Why is his ethnonym "British"? Would it not be more accurate to describe him as either English or Anglo-Irish? UaMaol ( talk) 14:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Robert Erskine Childers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://afloat.ie/sail/classic-boats/item/19567-howth-gun-running-vessel-asgard-exhibition-launched-at-national-museumWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps someone here can offer a perspective, my edit concerning Childers was removed from the Seaplane Experimental Station page without it seems any real justification, see the talk page here [1]. I pointed to the simple discrepancy concerning T. E. Lawrence and RAF Calshot and there being what seems to be a double standard applied in this case? Other information was removed about the same time.
My brief summary under See Also was as follows including the citations:
References
The result of the move request was: consensus that the common name of the author is Erskine Childers, but no consensus that he is the primary topic; thus, moving to Erskine Childers (author) at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 07:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
– Both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As well as being an important Irish political figure, he is also important as the author of The Riddle of the Sands. PatGallacher ( talk) 00:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz talk | contribs 19:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
At the moment, under Mary Alan Osgood we have (m. 1904, d. 1922), which strongly implies she died in 1922. The article goes on to say she died in 1964.
I'd suggest changing this to (married 1904 - his death), which is the format used in the James Joyce infobox. Clear air turbulence ( talk) 22:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
This section is described in the article as a "book", but in fact it's a transcript of a lecture Childers delivered at the Mansion House, Dublin, on 2 March 1912. If I can find a transcript this can be corrected.-- AntientNestor ( talk) 20:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Update: There is no such book as The Form and Purpose of Home Rule, only the lecture under that name, as above—facsimile here. Hathi Trust's online facsimile edition of The Framework of Home Rule (the book) here shows that the WP article is definitely referring to the wrong work. The mistake is not by the OP Dabberoni15; it is as given in the work they used as a source. Confirmation comes from the chapters and text in Framework corresponding to the chapters described in the WP article.
Incidentally: the Childers family copy of Framework had a copy of the "Form and Purpose" transcript tucked into the back of it, which may have confused some researchers [3].
{{Dubious}} tag reinstated. Sorry for the confusion.-- AntientNestor ( talk) 22:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: KJP1 ( talk · contribs) 10:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Pleased to pick this up. Will work on it over the weekend, likely in fits and starts. Fee free to respond as I go, or when I'm done, at which point I'll ping you. Ping me if anything's unclear.
Two immediate thoughts. First, I see the lead editor hasn't contributed in over a decade. I'm not sure about the etiquette in such circumstances. I can't think a Talkpage notification would be of much value in these circumstances. Second, I've read the (two) previous discussions on a change of title. Personally, I think he's indisputably the most famous Erskine Childers, and note he's the only EC on here. For those reasons, I'd personally propose dropping the (author) element. But it's not a GAN issue, so we can safely park it. KJP1 ( talk) 10:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
((outdent}}
(Criteria marked are unassessed)
Tentative effort to expand lede and infobox prepared and will be added shortly—further suggestions welcome. As the talk page squabbles over the article name have long ago subsided, it seems possible now to remove all the references from the lede. I'm reluctant to change the article title just now, in case the issue starts up again—it looked a bit acrimonious at the time. Following up on your further suggestions in due course. Many thanks.-- AntientNestor ( talk) 15:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I think I'm just about finished, but there may well be a few points I've missed.-- AntientNestor ( talk) 12:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
@ KJP1: The article's success owes a lot both to your grasp of the broad issues and also to your detailed suggestions. Thank you.-- AntientNestor ( talk) 16:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Vaticidalprophet (
talk) 10:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by AntientNestor ( talk). Self-nominated at 17:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Erskine Childers (author); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Currently embarked on Legacy of Violence: A History of the British Empire. Not an easy or a comfortable read, particularly for a Brit. But I did come across Childers. Writing after the Burning of Cork, he attacked the British Government’s claim that the national movement in Ireland was nothing but a ‘murder squad’; “It is a natural uprising; a collision between two Governments, one resting on consent, the other on force. The Irish are struggling against overwhelming odds to defend their own elected institutions against extinction”. (P=153}} Not saying it has a place in this article, but an interesting insight into his view, and his passion. All the best. KJP1 ( talk) 17:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Erskine Childers (author) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Erskine Childers (author) has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
September 19, 2023. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that novelist
Erskine Childers was an artilleryman in the British Army, a lieutenant in the Royal Navy, a major in the Royal Air Force, and a staff captain in the Irish Republican Army? | ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on November 24, 2007, November 24, 2008, November 24, 2009, November 24, 2010, November 24, 2012, November 24, 2015, November 24, 2016, November 24, 2017, November 24, 2018, and November 24, 2023. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have classified this article as a start due to its level of organisation and detail. Capitalistroadster 06:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Changed DSO to DSC - I've seen this mistake elsewhere. Removed "Soon Childers was regarded as a traitor not only by the British, but by the pro-Treaty Free State government in Dublin, which was under increasing pressure from Winston Churchill and the British government to take violent reprisal measures against the anti-treaty forces and their leaders." as the civil war had started, so pretty obvious. Red Hurley ( talk) 14:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
On the Main page, 23-24th of November, the pistol Childers was carrying when he was arrested was described as a revolver, where as in the article it is described as a small caliber automatic pistol. Clearly, they cannot both be correct. Handschuh- talk to me 02:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Adhering to the Wikipedia naming convention would have this article named "Erskine Childers", with the full name as a redirect page and given in the lead paragraph. I'm inclined to make the change, subject to other editors' thoughts. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 23:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
A recent edit duplicated some material, already included, regarding the Irish Convention. I've removed it, but that's not to say that the topic couldn't be expanded. I also need to get on with the Anglo-Irish Treaty, where Childers was also secretary, this time on the "other" side. This is an important episode and similarly needs to be covered in more detail. It's gradually rising to the top of my "to do pile", unless someone else has the inclination. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 14:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The article on Mary Childers give the year of her death as 1974, while this article gives it as 1964. It cannot be that both are correct. Snezzy ( talk) 17:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
There was not one incident which was responsible for Childers's conversion from loyal supporter of the British Empire to extreme Irish nationalist: a nationalist so intemperate that his opposition to compromise is sometimes credited with bringing about the Irish Civil War
This sentence is loaded with pov. First off Childers was a republican, secondly the use of the adjective 'extreme' is fatous, uneccessary and pov. The use of the adjective 'intemperate' is also pov and the idea that childers was in any way personally responisble for the civil war is actually civil war propaganda designed to justify his execution. It is unseemly in an encyclopedia. I'm editing this to something more sensible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.102.222 ( talk) 20:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The reference now includes the quotation and context for "extreme": there's no latitude for changing the material away from the reference. It's a synthesis, which isn't allowed. Once again: please by all means add other reliable sources with alternative interpretations (or, if you prefer, alternative "politics"), but don't just add your own interpretation without anything to back it up.-- Old Moonraker ( talk) 07:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors. I have just read this article and wanted to thank those of you who have clearly worked so hard to create a scholarly and well arranged piece. I have no specialist knowledge on the man or the period but I was taken aback by one small section, which I now see has been the subject of extensive discussion on this Talk Page.The section is at the start of the ‘Conversion’ section and currently reads: 'There was no single incident which was responsible for Childers's conversion from loyal supporter of the British Empire to extreme Irish nationalist: a nationalist so intemperate that his opposition to compromise is sometimes blamed for bringing about the Irish Civil War. Rather, there was a gradual awareness, later turning into a fanatical obsession.' I wanted, politely, to suggest as a ‘naïve ordinary reader’ the terms ‘extreme’, ‘intemperate’ and ‘fanatical’ seemed unencyclopedic to me and risk detracting from the otherwise scholarly and balanced tone of the article. Unhelpfully, I have no suggestions to make as to how this should be re-worded but would encourage those of you who have crafted such a good article to see if you can find a better choice of words. jb3ddd —Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I've checked the links complained of by User:WildBot, but they all seem to work. That's not to say that better targets couldn't be found. Any oversight and suggestions from other contributors on this? -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 12:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
We have "Childers smuggled in some guns "but" he was executed by the Free State government (my clumsy paraphrase and added emphasis). This possibly implies some presupposition; anyone mind if I make this an "and" instead ? Italics and WL for Asgard, at the same time. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 14:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I think that, with the recent improvements to his period as a TD, this article is within sight of WP:GA status. If there's any support, I'll submit it. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 06:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, that’s your opinion isn’t it. It’s not a fact. Or else it might be an amusing story which demonstrates that Childers’s views had irritated the new generation of top brass in the British Army so much that one of them had to be mollified with a grim joke about their impracticability (and black humour about one’s profession, much of which would sound shocking to outsiders, is hardly confined to generals). I am happy to accept your protestations of good faith but you are more likely to receive that courtesy if you first extend it to others – as opposed to making wholesale deletions of material from a topic on which I had already been more than cooperative about removing material like the Elgin Commission which is on reflection not directly relevant and on which discussion had ended (in so far as anything on Wikipedia ever ends) with OldMoonraker’s comment that “That looks about right now”, not to mention aggressive and dismissive phrases like “coat-racking” “barrack room banter” and the ill-judged claim that this section (covering a writing career which took up a decade of the subject’s life and brought him onto the fringes of the national stage) “should be the first to go”.
The bottom line is that as it stands at the moment the section consists of three short paras, much more accurate than before I started to work on it, and frankly rather more succinctly expressed than a lot of the rest of the article. I do not accept that it contains “puffery (which) detracts from where the focus should lie” or “a detailed treatise on cavalry tactics and the opinions of others”. It contains a single sentence explaining what the argument was about and another about how his views did not prevail, along with some other phrases from which the reader can infer that Childers’s views were not as necessarily correct as is sometimes supposed.
Richard Holmes, French’s biographer, has about 6 or 7 index references to Childers and includes some detail on Childers’s views on how the successful charge at Elandslaagte owed a lot to a curious set of coincidental circumstances (probably true), and how Childers felt the need to apologise for disagreeing publicly with Jonny French, the most celebrated cavalry commander in the world at the time. Now, all of that would meet your criterion about being relevant to Childers and his writings, so would you like me to post them in the article? No, thought not. Paulturtle ( talk) 00:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a deliberate redlink. I've had it here for quite a while now, in the hope that someone from milhist might be tempted to have a go, but I'm about to give in and try for myself. I've found enough material for a stub, at least. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 09:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
There has been a recent, and wholly valid, expansion in the part of the article dealing with War and the Arme Blanche, along with some useful L3 headers to break up some long sections. However, is the new paragraph following, dealing with deliberations of the Elgin Committee and a road to a cemetery perhaps named after the subject's cousin, really relevant? I suggest the application of "please be bold in deleting" from WP:TOPIC. As the guideline notes: this is particularly valid where the unrelated information has a natural home in another article. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 07:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Before I got to work on the section it basically said that Childers' views on the obsolescence of cavalry charges were clearly correct and the British Army refused to accept them because it would have meant admitting they were wrong - and cited as a source a 1970s book, written at a time when the reputation of British WW1 generalship was at its nadir. To quote Sir John French's biographer Richard Holmes "it's easy to chuckle", but there were reasons for their beliefs. Our ancestors may have been wrong about some things but they were no stupider than you or I. By all means trim the section a bit - the key point is that this was a matter of controversy at the highest levels of the British Army and tactical lessons are never as obvious as they appear with hindsight.
You are quite right, the cemetary would most likely have been named after H.C.E.Childers (which I confess hadn't occurred to me) but it is indicative that Erskine Childers' views had attracted enough attention to irritate one of the leading generals of the British Army (which Haig was, even then). I think it's an amusing story and it belongs here rather than in the Haig biog, where it would be too trivial to include.
I cleaned up some of the Irish Home Rule stuff as well, as this was an electoral albatross for the Liberal Party and they most certainly didn't have a mandate for it in 1906 - I was tempted to mention Rosebery's infamous description of Home Rule as "fly-blown phylacteries" in 1900, but that would have attracted the same off-topic objections. It wasn't really the issue in 1910 either, the issues were tariffs and stripping the Lords of their veto to get Lloyd George's budget through. Paulturtle ( talk) 09:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Have moved the Elgin Committee to Elgin's own biog, as that's probably not directly relevant unless we have evidence that Childers testified. Paulturtle ( talk) 15:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a very informative article. The major downside for me was that, in trying to understand Childers spectacular if not unique conversion, the article jumps around his life. From sailing in 1898 to sailing the Asgard in 1914, to the Home Rule Convention in 1917 back to his marriage in 1903, and so on. 79.97.64.240 ( talk) 12:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Why is his ethnonym "British"? Would it not be more accurate to describe him as either English or Anglo-Irish? UaMaol ( talk) 14:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Robert Erskine Childers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://afloat.ie/sail/classic-boats/item/19567-howth-gun-running-vessel-asgard-exhibition-launched-at-national-museumWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps someone here can offer a perspective, my edit concerning Childers was removed from the Seaplane Experimental Station page without it seems any real justification, see the talk page here [1]. I pointed to the simple discrepancy concerning T. E. Lawrence and RAF Calshot and there being what seems to be a double standard applied in this case? Other information was removed about the same time.
My brief summary under See Also was as follows including the citations:
References
The result of the move request was: consensus that the common name of the author is Erskine Childers, but no consensus that he is the primary topic; thus, moving to Erskine Childers (author) at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 07:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
– Both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As well as being an important Irish political figure, he is also important as the author of The Riddle of the Sands. PatGallacher ( talk) 00:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz talk | contribs 19:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
At the moment, under Mary Alan Osgood we have (m. 1904, d. 1922), which strongly implies she died in 1922. The article goes on to say she died in 1964.
I'd suggest changing this to (married 1904 - his death), which is the format used in the James Joyce infobox. Clear air turbulence ( talk) 22:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
This section is described in the article as a "book", but in fact it's a transcript of a lecture Childers delivered at the Mansion House, Dublin, on 2 March 1912. If I can find a transcript this can be corrected.-- AntientNestor ( talk) 20:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Update: There is no such book as The Form and Purpose of Home Rule, only the lecture under that name, as above—facsimile here. Hathi Trust's online facsimile edition of The Framework of Home Rule (the book) here shows that the WP article is definitely referring to the wrong work. The mistake is not by the OP Dabberoni15; it is as given in the work they used as a source. Confirmation comes from the chapters and text in Framework corresponding to the chapters described in the WP article.
Incidentally: the Childers family copy of Framework had a copy of the "Form and Purpose" transcript tucked into the back of it, which may have confused some researchers [3].
{{Dubious}} tag reinstated. Sorry for the confusion.-- AntientNestor ( talk) 22:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: KJP1 ( talk · contribs) 10:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Pleased to pick this up. Will work on it over the weekend, likely in fits and starts. Fee free to respond as I go, or when I'm done, at which point I'll ping you. Ping me if anything's unclear.
Two immediate thoughts. First, I see the lead editor hasn't contributed in over a decade. I'm not sure about the etiquette in such circumstances. I can't think a Talkpage notification would be of much value in these circumstances. Second, I've read the (two) previous discussions on a change of title. Personally, I think he's indisputably the most famous Erskine Childers, and note he's the only EC on here. For those reasons, I'd personally propose dropping the (author) element. But it's not a GAN issue, so we can safely park it. KJP1 ( talk) 10:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
((outdent}}
(Criteria marked are unassessed)
Tentative effort to expand lede and infobox prepared and will be added shortly—further suggestions welcome. As the talk page squabbles over the article name have long ago subsided, it seems possible now to remove all the references from the lede. I'm reluctant to change the article title just now, in case the issue starts up again—it looked a bit acrimonious at the time. Following up on your further suggestions in due course. Many thanks.-- AntientNestor ( talk) 15:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I think I'm just about finished, but there may well be a few points I've missed.-- AntientNestor ( talk) 12:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
@ KJP1: The article's success owes a lot both to your grasp of the broad issues and also to your detailed suggestions. Thank you.-- AntientNestor ( talk) 16:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Vaticidalprophet (
talk) 10:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by AntientNestor ( talk). Self-nominated at 17:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Erskine Childers (author); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Currently embarked on Legacy of Violence: A History of the British Empire. Not an easy or a comfortable read, particularly for a Brit. But I did come across Childers. Writing after the Burning of Cork, he attacked the British Government’s claim that the national movement in Ireland was nothing but a ‘murder squad’; “It is a natural uprising; a collision between two Governments, one resting on consent, the other on force. The Irish are struggling against overwhelming odds to defend their own elected institutions against extinction”. (P=153}} Not saying it has a place in this article, but an interesting insight into his view, and his passion. All the best. KJP1 ( talk) 17:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)