Talk:Patrick Pearse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the Troubles. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
 | All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related. |
Emmett claim
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
195.22.229.22, 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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮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)
So no objections then I take it?195.22.229.22 (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
|
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)
- @185.64.16.117: 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. @Scolaire:.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)
- 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)
Pearse's wife information
Although I am not educated on the topic, the section mentioning Pearse's wives is not coherent and should be amended to mention to whom he married in each case 2A02:8086:C91:BF00:E8B4:65CB:E20F:DA5E (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC)