Talk:Eoin MacNeill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article. A couple suggestions:[edit]

1. Link "Padraig Pearse" with the existing Patrick Pearse page. 2. Mention that MacNeill only agreed to support action because he believed suppression of the Volunteers was inevitable once the British discovered the Volunteers were receiving arms from Germany. He reversed this position when he discovered the shipment was lost, which basically reverted his stance to the one he held all along: that the the Volunteers should take action only if attempts were made to supress them, disarm them, or if concription were introduced to Ireland. 3. Mention both the Irish Republican Brotherhood and the Easter Rising by name. -R. fiend It's wrong to say that, on the Boundary Commission, Dublin "reluctantly gave in"; it was voted for by 71-20 in the Dail. MacNeill resigned because Cosgrave went over the head of the entire commission by starting a direct negotiation with London, and traded the 'imperial debt' for acceptance of the border as it was.Red Hurley 13:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus to move page, per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eoin MacNeill → Eoin Mac Néill — In line with WP:IMOS —Damac (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support, for reasons outlined below.--Damac (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for reasons outlined below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wiki with the use of redirects will locate the article regardless. His position within the Gaelic League, is the clearest indication of his own preference. I really really don't like these google polls. Wiki is an educational forum, and the information should reflect that, do the majority of readers know that he used the Irish version of his name, if they use wiki, they will. --Domer48 (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'd have to agree with BrownHairedGirl on this. --203.220.171.83 (talk) 10:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Eoin MacNeill is the common name. EJF (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

The subject a) used the Irish form of his name and b) is widely recognised as having done so. Indeed, the National Library of Ireland catalogues him as accordingly[1], as does WorldCat, albeit without the fada,[2], and the library of the National University of Ireland, Galway[3]
Does it really matter ? Redirects can take care of individuals' different styles of name that were used, to point to the article itself. What really matters is that the article should correctly note and explain his various styles of name, which it does. Rcbutcher (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • I have no strong opinion here, though I am tempted to agree somewhat with Brownhairedgirl. While I don't give too much credence to google results, it does seem that most historians and biographers refer to him as "Eoin MacNeill". The use of Eoin instead of his birthname, John, already demonstrates his affinity for the Irish form, even without using the less common form of his last name. In any case, it is a pretty minor point, as the differences between the forms are too small to cause confusion (unlike the still disputed MacDermott/Mac Diarmada question). -R. fiend (talk) 18:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We had the same problem a few years back when the Éamon de Valera article was named Eamon de Valera. Against considerable opposition from people who used the same arguments as R. fiend and Brownhairedgirl, the decision was eventually reached the subject's article should use the form of the name that the subject himself used. Up to that point, a Google hit produced far more hits for Eamonn de Valera. Wikipedia set the record straight, and how Éamon de Valera produces more hits. In this regard, Wikipedia has proved itself to be reliable.
The same applies with Eoin Mac Néill. That is how he wrote his name, even when the content of his correspondence was English. Eoin MacNeill/Eoin McNeill is simply the lazy way of rendering his name, a sort of half-way house between the English form of the name he was born with and the Irish form he later adopted and used daily. The lack of knowledge of fadas and Irish orthography produced the Eoin MacNeill version, which has been repeated over and over again.
On a final note: while I appreciate User:Domer48's support in this regard, I should point out that Eoin Mac Néill used this form of his name, which cannot be said for the SF and/or IRA people for which he has added contrived Irish names.--Damac (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not added contrived Irish names you clown, I added references! Stop being a prat. --Domer48 (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Boundary Cmn[edit]

Removed some {{Fact}} marks from this section, as the points are fully referenced on the Boundary Commission page, which is linked.86.42.204.93 (talk) 10:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference the information. --Domer48 (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone say with authority why MacNeill resigned his ministry in 1925, supposedly in protest at the Boundary Commission debacle, yet when it came to the vote on 10 December he voted in favour of the status quo? That seems illogical, or did he have a reason to change his mind in the interim?86.42.204.237 (talk) 11:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "speculation" bit and put his 1925 resignations in order. Clearly he resigned from the Commission because of the press leak, and very soon after as Minister, but within a week or so he then voted for the agreement because it was by then the only deal on the table. The problem IMHO was that the Irish commissioner should have been a senior civil servant, and not a Minister whose reputation would rise or fall over the outcome.Red Hurley (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slight restructuring[edit]

I'm planning to expand this article a bit (mainly with info regarding EMN as a scholar), and if I get around to do so I suggest a slight restructuring. It does make sense as currently to organise the article thematically and not chronologically (separate politics from scholarly work), I'd like to make the headings more consistent and move some bits and pieces of the content around. Proposed headings:

  • 1. Early life and family
  • 2. Nationalist and revolutionary
  • 3. Politician
    • Irish Boundary Commission (as subheading here)
  • 4. Scholar

Section 2 should discuss his early interest in Celtic language and culture, which led him into his scholarly career as well as into politics. These are just some thoughts from the top of my head right now - but I'd like to get some feedback in case anyone should have serious objections. Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thematic structure works for me, but if his academic interest led to his revolutionary politics should that not come first as a 'token' to chronology? RashersTierney (talk) 11:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think his Irish interest led to his revolutionary politics as well as to his academic studies. As for chronology, he was indeed an acknowledged scholar and professor before his political career started (for real), but on the other hand he gave up politics after the general election of 1927, while he remained an active scholar until 42/43. Anyway, on second thought it might be better if I try to add some more info first and then we can figure out how to structure the chronology. Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. The order of sections can always be discussed later. RashersTierney (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IRB in the introduction[edit]

I think the mention of the IRB in the introduction should go for several reasons.

  1. It's a very awkward sentence as it stands.
  2. Most importantly, it seems to state that MacNeill was in collusion with the IRB when he certainly was not. He had worked with various members, probably unaware that most of them were even part of that organization.
  3. It's unnecessary. The intro should be about MacNeill and what he did. The involvement of other groups should be mentioned elsewhere, and is. It's covered in the section on the establishment of the Volunteers, and more thoroughly in the Irish Volunteers article. We don't need to mention the IRB, or any other group, every time the Volunteers are mentioned. We mention his co-founding of the Gaelic League in the same sentence without going into the other parties involved.
  4. The sourcing of this is particularly bad. Yes, we know the IRB was heavily involved in the establishment of the Volunteers, but that particular passage in McGee's book is a lousy reference for that, as it is terribly vague and misleading.

If there's any strong, compelling reason to leave that bit in the opening please state what it is. As it stands it just adds awkwardness and confusion. R. fiend (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MacNeill is regarded as the father of the modern study of early Irish medieval history. I think that this needs some additional referencing to support the claim being made.
As an alternative to the current wording of the next sentence, I would suggest the following text, using italics to highlight the suggested changes.
"He was a co-founder of the Gaelic League, established to preserve the Irish language and culture, before going on to establish the Irish Volunteers with the prompting and encouragement of the Irish Republican Brotherhood,[3] and becoming the Volunteers Chief-of-Staff."
Per Lead, the lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. The Volunteers is one of, if not the most important aspect. The current Lead, is very short and concise, though I think the boundary commission should also be mentioned. As to the sourcing, the current source is eminently reliable, more so than the lack of sourcing I've pointed to above. As to it being awkward, confusing and misleading, it would appear that only one editor has found this to be the case to date. Therefore per LEAD, I consider the removal of this information would require some compelling reasoning, which at present I can't see, nor would I expect to see any time soon.--Domer48'fenian' 14:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your first point; the "father of the modern study of early Irish medieval history" bit could use better sourcing, since the current link doesn't work. That's a separate issue, however. Your suggested rephrasing of the sentence in question still gives the impression of collusion between MacNeill and the IRB, when there wasn't any. I'm trying to think of some way to put it wherein the role of the IRB can be mentioned, yet having the non-collusion nature specified, without becoming even more tangled and awkward, but nothing is coming to mind. As for the purpose of the lead, yes, it should be a summary of the most important aspects, and the Volunteers obviously fit the bill, but the IRB is not one of the most important aspects of an article on Eoin MacNeill. MacNeill had little to do with the IRB, but you'd never know that from reading the lead. Why is it so important to you that in this article go into these details in what should be a brief summary? Remember, this is not an article on the Volunteers. These details are covered much accurately and succinctly in the "Revolutionary" section, where they belong. Should we mention everyone involved in the Volunteers' formation in the lead, along with the Ulster Volunteers (who were probably the single biggest instigator)? The lead doesn't even mention Sinn Fein, and he was a member of the party for a good portion of his life, why the IRB? -R. fiend (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eoin MacNeill. 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:

When 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eoin MacNeill. 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:

When 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Birth Name[edit]

I believe that 'McNeill' is correct (as opposed to 'MacNeill') inasmuch as the subject's brother James was always known as James McNeill. The text and info box are consistent now. Billsmith60 (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eoin_MacNeill&oldid=1208672812"