User talk:Jdorney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 15:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your contributions. This is a reminder to please include a brief description of your changes in the Edit Summary, so that other contributors to the articles you edit can more efficiently track the progress of said articles.--A. S. A. 15:52, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hey there! Nice work on the seventeenth century, also an era of deep interest to myself. More, please! Fergananim

[edit] Michael O'Riordan

Hi, thank you for rewriting the page on Michael O'Riordan. There were a few mistakes in the original piece which I thought necessary to amend. For instance, my grandfather was not a native speaker as it had previously stated. I don't know where this notion came from, Gerry Adams even included in his tribute.

[edit] Tudor Reconquest of Ireland

I've just done a few rewrites of this article and opened the discussion page. Thanks for starting it up, as well as the other Tudor Ireland articles (I'll have a go at those too). Is this message longer than is preferable?--shtove 20:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

No, don't worry about it. What are you planning for other tudor articles? Jdorney

I'd say the Tudor Ireland articles will need illustrations, and more references, footnotes and linkage, before the Wiki-powers rank them. I'm new to to this and expect to contribute to various other articles touching on this period, but have no plans to start any from scratch. I suppose there's a lot of battles that could be described in separate articles. I don't have full access to my notes or library at the moment, so I'm constrained by having to work mostly from memory. I'll get better, but it's far more time-consuming than expected.
I've done a bit on your Nine Years War, and I'll have a go at the Desmond Rebellions after that. In the Tudor area I've added to the articles on Elizabeth I (NPOV'd on my description of the Desmond War 1580-83 - bloody monarchists!), Trial by Combat, and Spanish Armada. I also had an etymology article on the word Hubbub (of Irish Tudor interest) trans-Wikied from Wiktionary, but it was instantly returned to its nesting place, which led to some techno discussion about protocols and procedures. I'm preparing an addition to the Harp article, with a description of the development of the instrument in post-Desmond Munster in the 1580's - it's an odd achievement of Gaelic culture, to have created one of the most sophisticated European instruments of the period (second only to the violin?) in a province so buggered up by war.
In my edits, I generally omit the apostrophe from Irish names (O Neill, instead of O'Neill), which may cause problems on internal links; and I prefer the term sept to clan in the Tudor Irish context (no problem when it comes to Scotland).
Anyway, I gather your main interest is in the Confederacy/Cromwellian period, so thanks for setting up such well judged articles on this period. Years ago I spent too much time reading documents from Elizabethan Ireland, and then chose to pursue a career rather than lose myself in the maze. Any researcher of this material will recognise the truth of Sean O'Faoilean's observation (afterword to his book on Hugh O'Neill) on how quickly the problems come crowding in. More power to your elbow.--shtove 22:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds good. Personally I prefer clan to sept because it is a more internationally recognised word, but it doesn't make much difference. I actually did my MA on Florence McCarthy and the Nine Years war in Munster. You're dead right, its impossibly complicated,everyone constantly changing sides and stabbing each othe in the back. O'Faoilean didn't know the half of it. Re getting ranked, I wouldn't get your hopes up. I've edited and illustrated the confederate/cromwellian articles away and nobody really takes any notice. Modern history unsurprisingly gets all the attention. Good luck though! Jdorney 23:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irish topics

Sorry if this has been mentioned already or you know about it, but you may be interested in Wikipedia:Irish Wikipedians' notice board. It's useful for collaborating, requesting comments or general notices on Irish-related articles. zoney ♣ talk 15:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nine Year's War & Confederate Ireland

The Confederate period is very interesting, what do you think of the articles I've contributed here about it? Re accounts by participants, most of them were destroyed either an a fire in the customs hse in the1700s or the during the civl war. But there are some surviving ones left, like Richard Bellings, a Supreme Council member, who wrote a book aout his experiences. The other main source is the letter collections of the earls of Ormonde and Clanricarde, who had people like Patrick Darcy and loads of others constantly writing about what was going on in the assemblies. Also, there's a collection of writings by Rinuccini and his assistants, who tell us about their time in Ireland. There's been great work done on this time recently by people like Micheal O Siochru and Padraig Lenihan, but I don't know if any of it has really penetrated to the Irish public at large. Maybe someone should write a general narrative history - you fancy it?! Jdorney


I think your articles are fantastic, much tighter and more 'together' than mine. My fav is the one on the Nine Year's War, though the ones about Confederate Ireland and the battle of Clonmel come close. They are all extremely involved subjects, so frankly I'm very suprised that no one has yet given you any awards concerning them, either as individual or collective efforts. Maybe its because we only really know our history from 1798 onwards?

Are you aware of any translations of Rinuccini's published works? All the ones I've seen are in Latin, and I would very much like to consult them myself.

The family member I speck of was both a first cousion and brother-in-law to Patrick Darcy; Richard Martin fitz Oliver. Darcy too is a man who deserves an in-depth article.


Maybe someone should write a general narrative history - you fancy it?! How do you mean? Fergananim


Ah, you're making me blush! The Rinuccini, thing, yes its available in english, where i don't remember, but it was translated from the latin in the 19th century. I got a photo-copy of Rinuccini's report to the Pope when he got back to Italy in college. needless to say, its extremely biased, it could also be titled, "why the Irish catholics lost due to everyone else's fault except mine". There's also an irish language source called Cin Lae O Meallain, which was written by a cleric acompanying the Ulster army. i saw this re-published recently in a history of Tyrone I think it was. O Meallain wouldn't have much to say about the actual confederation though, because he was on campaing the whole time and like a lot of his felloulstermen tended to think of the supreme council members as traitors anyway.

Re the general narrative thing, i meant that someone should write a book that was an entertaining general history of the time, so that more irish people would learn about it. A Daunting challenge though! Oh I've done the expansion of the History of Dublin history, now, but i may have annoyed some people because the article is now very long. Jdorney


I've created a new article on Augrhim which you may find of interest Galwaymen at the Battle of Aughrim, though I must state it is still very much incomplete. Fergananim


Very interesting. Interesting that even at this date, after all the mass confiscations of land, the Irish landowners and chiefs could still go around bringing people off to war in the way they had always done - eg the O'Kelly came out with his people etc, this could easily have been referring to the 16c or hundreds of years before. Also, there were clearly a hell of a lot of "important" people ("of rank" as it says) killed at the battle, and it seems to have been an especially bad day for the Kirwans! No wonder the battle's memory resonated so much. If I could make on suggestion though, how about re writing the info rather than publishing the whole source - which is very interesting from a historical point of view, but maybe a modern commentary would be better by encyclopedia standards.

Oh yes also, about Darcy and Martin, if you're interested there's a hell of a lot of info about them in "Confederate Ireland" by Micheal O Siochru, if you can get your hands on it. Its basically the first in depth look at Confederate politics. Jdorney


I read O Siochru's book and I agree its pretty good. Being a bit of a slew of books on this subject over the last few years, don't you think? Not a bad thing as it has being for quite a while an overlooked chapter in our history. But you're right, a 'popular' history of that era, less dense than the likes of O Siochru et al (though I devour such books) full of pictures, maps, battle plans ... but not now! I still have to finish off the book I'm working on!

Actually I've found out more about Richard myself via my own research over the years. For the last couple of years I have wondered if I could write a book based on the events in County Galway between 1632 and 1652, as there is so much scope, intrigue, mystery, triumph and tragedy there. Course I'd have to deal with the background to it all on a Galway and national level, which is massively complicated. This is why I ended up writing on wikipedia in the first place, because it makes the job of 'publication' and peer review so much easier!

Yeah, I think you're right, and I will re-write it. It did'nt even mention the eight Dilleens who died there!

We ought to try and get more people checking out this stuff; it really won't do to have just the two of us working and commenting on this.Fergananim

Yeah I know - but maybe people will just come across them and read them. Loads of people have edited the confederate articles, so obviously there's some interest. The most readable book recently has been Lenihans confederate catholics at war, which gives you much more of flavour of the time - using the Irish peotry and personal diaries to show what the fighting was like. i think it helps that he was an Irish army soldier and so knows what these things are like a bit more. I'd also love to write a general history, maybe some day. But I'll still be happy if people come on to wikipedia and read what I've written here. Jdorney

One other thing I've being meaning to mention to you. I am in the process of creating king-lists of all the major and minor Irish kingdoms (see Kings of Lenister, Kings of Connacht, for examples). In addition to these lists, I want to add additional pages briefly describing the history of the various ruling dynastys themselves. What I want to ask you is should they be placed under some new heading or catagory, such as Irish Kings, Irish Kingdoms, or what? Fergananim.

Yes they all should be in the one category. Is there one for irish Kings? Maybe you could put links on the pagre Irish kings? Jdorney

Thanks for your comment on my user page!

Here it is:

"Hi, re the edit on Richard Boyle, there is no key on my comuter for the numbering thing, so thats why th earl of orrerry was misnumbered, but now htere is no link on the Earl of Cork page to the main article on Orrerry, who was by far Boyles most important son. I'm not going to go reverting it but it should be changed - properly numbered etc"

If you have a look, you will see that the First Earl of Orrery was already listed (as child No.11 of the Great Earl)!

The thing that possibly distracted you was that he was known as 'Roger the Wise', but what I have done as a result of your (very welcome) prompting, is to put "1st Earl of Orrery' in the listing.

Do you know exactly how Richard Boyle, First Earl of Cork died?

I couldn't find the answer to that question in Dorothea Townshend's biography.

Thanks

ericross

[edit] Scottish Civil War

Thanks, got to say that this is something I knew nothing about until I stared fixing a redlink on a page last week, so correct me all you like! You mentioned the Montrose military genius thing being royalist propaganda. Any idea if that extends as far as royalist losses? They seem awfully low given the number of troops fighting, and I can't find any explanation for 106 "knights and gentlemen" which go missing between the battles at Tippermuir and Aberdeen. Cheers. Anilocra 14:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of Scotland

Hi. I've tried to answer your (perhaps justified) criticisms on my contributions to History of Scotland (see Talk). Having now seen your list of your articles, I'm happy to admit that you may know more than me. I got started on the article tryign to improve its flow and prose rather than on the facts - but I do think a few were misleading. Since your comment, I've put back the commonwealth para and expanded the Civil War stuff. Perhaps you could take a look at it and see if you concurr. I'm happy to be corrected - but I think a full revest of my edits would leave the text weaker. Cheers --Doc Glasgow 15:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That may be so, and fair play to you for contributing, but I just think you were bit hasty there. The main mover in the History of Scotland article has been User:Derek_Ross, so you should really take it up with him. Jdorney

[edit] Plantations of Ireland

If you do have a bit of time, I think that starting the Plantations of Ireland topic (even if only the headings) would be more important than more detail to my Act of Settlement 1662 article - that can wait. --Red King 13:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Right, I've made a start on it anyway Jdorney

good stuff. I've found an essay with references on the net, at [1] which may be of help. I don't have the background to assess it.

Yeah, its not bad at all. Its bit hazy on the stuff from the Confederate war era, but thats to be expected because a huge amount of new research in the last ten years has clarfied this area a lot. Without wanting to look big-headed, there's a lot of background info on the political contexts here at Tudor re-conquest of Ireland, Nine Years War (Ireland) Desmond Rebellions Cromwellian conquest of Ireland etc. There looks to be some good info in that essay about the particulars of the plantations though. I have some stuff that I wrote myself before on the Munster and Ulster plantations, but I'll have to look through it again before I'd be confident to write about it here. Jdorney

[edit] Seige of Galway

Yo! Sorry I have neither been in touch nor kept up the work for a while; stuff going on. But yes, I will do a write-up on the seiges of Forthill and Galway. Very complicated but fascinating subject. Cheers! Fergananim

I look forward to it! One thing though mate, its SIEGE, "I before E except after C!" Jdorney

Re:SIEGEs of Galway ... one down, fourteen to go! Fergananim

[edit] King Billy's statue

In the Battle_of_the_Boyne you note that Irish Republicans (which has a red link btw) blew up his statue. Afaik, the IRA never claimed it. Have you a source that the IRA did? There was a story that Trinity students did it! as his (and his horse) backside faced the college. For a history the the statue and the trinity students [2] --ClemMcGann 12:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning Irish Battles

I've re-edited the battles I added, removing most of the red links, and have moved the battle of Knockdoe under the heading Late Medieval Battles as most modern historians date the early modern Irish era to begin with the involvement of Henry VIII in Irish affairs (surrendur and regrant, et al). In addition I have filled in the 15th century with many of the relevant battles, some of which I hope to expand either into stubs or full-blown articles.

If you go to this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_%28geographic%29#Ireland - you can see I have expanded the list of Irish battles on a provisional basis. Some of those I will remove after consideration as I don't think they are important, while the ones I will concentrate on will be of at least some reasonable military and/or political significance.

For myself, I have found the process of making this list to be very illumanating, as it begining to make me see aspects of Irish warfare that were not apparent before. My main revelation is that, despite regular warfare - almost endemic you would think - there were not that many really large-scale battles, or battles of political significance. So I've left out a lot of seiges, raids, border skirmishes, dynastic clonflicts and the like.

Yet and all I have to emphasise that this is still very much an ongoing process, and anything you wish to add to this would be most welcome. My main source online for these battles are taken from the main Irish annals, which you can read at this site - http://www.ucc.ie/celt/publishd.html - others I'll take from published accounts, such as the state papers.

As reguards a list of Irish battles, I think the 14th and 15th centuries can be reguarded as done. Ditto reguards the Nine Years War, Confederate Wars, the War of the Two Kings and 1798. However, a huge amount of work still needs to be done for the era between the 5th and 12th centuries, especially the Viking conflicts and the Norman era. Just getting them all listed is difficult enough!

On a final note, I'm nearly ready to write up Lord Forbes Seige of Galway (August-September 1642), the seiges of Forthill (April-June 1643), Clanricarde's Seige of Galway (14th August-4th September 1647) and Sir Charles Coote's Seige (1652-53). Again, I'm sorry that you've had to wait so long. Hope they were worth the wait! Fergananim 31st May 2005.

No worries. fair play to you! You're dead right to say that most of the warfare in Ireland was always skirmishes and raids. I suspect a lot of the encounters mentioned in the annalls were just thatJdorney

Thanks! As I said before, ill-health kept me from finishing them off too. Its just that the more you dig into this, the more depth you find. And naturally you wish to say something on them all. To see all the trouble I have gotten myself into, check out Seiges of Galway! I promise to do the Confederate-era seiges first though! Fergananim 1st June 2005.

[edit] Ulster refugees

I don't know exactly when the refugees began arriving in Connacht. While the dates you give make sense, could the Plantation have started without a similar population movement?

Lapsed Pacifist 03:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To my knowledge, what happened in the Ulster Plantation was that the native population was moved to worse land, like hills and bogs in Ulster to make way for the planters. A couple of things that facilitated the plantation were that the province was severely de-populated after the Nine Years War, where maybe up to 100,000 people had died and more had moved elsewhere or fled abroad. Also, the number of settlers arriving was reasonably modest, about 25,000 adult males by 1641, which probably meant a total settler population of about 80,000. And the planters tended to clump together in certain areas - eg Antrim and Down, east Tyrone, north Armagh, east Donegal etc.

That said, I couldn't say for definitie that there wasn't a migration to Connacht by some Gaelic Irish people at this time, its not unreasonable. However, I do know that there was mass displacement of people in 1640s and 1790s. Not sure what happened to the refugees of the Confederate/Cromwellian era (though my guess is they re-setled in north connacht/north-west Leinster), but the ones of the 1790s definitely ended up in Connacht. The peep o day boys and co used to pin notices on thier houses saying, "To Hell or to Connacht". There's an interesting pamphlet online by Padraig Lenihan about this and how it relates to Irish folklore and prophecies. Jdorney


Do you know where I could find that pamphlet? Any other info or links you have on these refugees, especially on the areas they came from, would interest me greatly. Thanks,

Lapsed Pacifist 03:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't find it online, may not be there any more, but I downloaded it a good while ago and will email it to you Jdorney

Thanks, J. One thing that strikes me, though, is the prevalence of surnames in Mayo I would associate more with pre-plantation western Ulster (particularly Donegal), rather than areas like Armagh. I know Donegal was planted extensively during the early years of the plantation, but I always believed subsequent immigration was concentrated in eastern and central Ulster.

Lapsed Pacifist 18:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Donegal, yeah, mainly settled in the plantation years alright. And yes most subsequent settlement was east of the Bann. But Donegal was heavily fought over in the 1640s and produced refugee groups called "creaghts" who lived with their cattle. This is from "Confederate Catholics at War" (p.121) by Padraig Lenihan (same author as pamphlet). "As British raids into mid Ulster intensified during the winter of 1644-45, about a dozen clan based creaghts fled southwards, sheparded by O'Neill's army. This the largest single exodus, may have been swelled by 30-50,000 presons, or as much as a quarter of the native population of Ulster. The figure is a rough estimate based on a report of an O'Donnell creaght numbering 3000 men, woemn and children. This wave of refugees spread further afield than north Connacht and north Leinster, some even penetrated the Iveragh peninsula in the extreme south-west of Kerry."

The planter's army was based in east Donegal during this war, calling itself the "Lagan army" -despite the fact that it was actually in the Finn and Foyle valleys (!), the other reference to Donegal here is the O'Donnell name. Beyond that I don't really know the answer to this question. It is plausible that there was a lso a bg population transfer during the Ulster plantation as well. Jdorney 09:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wars of the three kingdoms

(I have only just read your comment on my talk page as I haven't visited this site for ages!) I really appreciate what you have added to the Wars of the Three Kingdoms page it gives an excellent overview and pulls all the separate conflicts together very well. I'm also pleased to see that mid 17th century Irish history (confederate Ireland etc) is now well represented on this site. --Cap 20:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 70's

Hi Jdorney, my request is a bit odd, so my apologies for the interrupting. I am translating some articles about Ireland for the hebrew wiki, and need an Irish to make sure some of the details are accurate. Now I am mostly interesting at the 70’s (bloody Sunday and etc’). Is it o.k if I’ll ask for some details when I’ll need to? Do you know other wikipedians which can assist? (you are the first active Irish wikipedian I saw, so..sorry). Best, Dorit 15:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sure, no problem! Go ahead, ask all the questions you like! I'll be glad to help. What would you like to know about Bloody Sunday?

Some other Irish wikipedians include User:Djegan User:Red King User:Lapsed Pacifist User:Fergananim Jdorney 21:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! I found most of the details I wanted, and hopefully 2 of the "Irish" articles I worked on lately will become "Today's featured article" at the hewiki. But before asking, would you like me to e-mail the questions or just leave it at this page? For me e-mail is better, but whatever you prefer. best, Dorit 22:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If email is better for you that's no problem .Jdorney

Great, I’ve just sent it. I also delete the e-mail address, since it is a known receipt for junk mail. Thank you, Dorit 11:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Irish Volunteers

I believe the figure of 100,000 comes from before the split in 1914 between those who agreed to join the British army (by then called the National Volunteers) and those who went on to take part in the Rising (who kept the original title). While the number of volunteers did decrease once fighting broke out, I think it's stretching it to say they were that strong (even on paper) at any point between the Rising and the Truce. If I'm missing something important and you were already aware of this, don't hesitate in rebuking me.

Lapsed Pacifist 13:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll have to look it up, and when I do I'll get back to you, but I'm pretty sure this figure is correct for the Volunteers of circa 1919. There was a massive rise in their recruitment in the conscription crisis of 1918, because people didn't want to serve in WWI, but understandably onlya minority of them were committed enough to be guerrilla fighters. In fact, most armies find that the number of effective fighting soldiers is far less than their total number. For example, only about 25% of soldiers in US combat units in WWII fired their weapons in combat (according to a post-war US survey) and even fewer (about 12%) fired aimed shots - ie to kill specific people. So the IRA of 1920-21 would not be unusual here. Fair point to raise though Jdorney 13:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

About the Kilmichael ambush; there was a false surrender, and an IRA man was killed when he approached the Auxiliaries. After that no further opportunity was given for surrender. That's my understanding of it anyways.

Lapsed Pacifist 13:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's right. That's Tom Barry's version anyway. Recently a Canadian historian, forget his name right now, has written a book about the IRA in Cork has suggested that the Auxiliaries really did surrender and Barry killed them all anyway. Personally don't know the ins and outs, maybe should mention both versions? Jdorney 17:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Peter Hart. I have'nt read the book, but I've read some reviews that are'nt favourable. Here's one [3]. He assumed that because the Cork IRA were killing a disproportionate amount of Protestants, they were killing them because they were Protestants. I've read another review from the same website that says he was basing a lot of his work on newspsper and magazine articles at the time that turned out later to have been planted by Dublin Castle (see on this point study by Brian Murpy on British propaganda in 1920: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75117 and http://www.spinwatch.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=471), I'll have a look for it. He seems very dodgy, I remember him claiming to have interviewed old IRA men and other sources claimed they were dead at the time when he gave the dates of the interviews (see http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75885). I have'nt read his book, but he merits a closer investigation. I've been having a similar discussion on Talk:Bernard Law Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein. Personally, I doubt it. Barry admits openly he gave orders to shoot members of the Essex Regiment whether or not they were armed, because of their reputation for killing unarmed prisoners compared to other regiments. If he had a similar policy towards Auxiliaries I can't for the world of me see why he would hide it (see Meda Ryan's Tom Barry IRA Freedom Fighter, Mercier 2003 HP, 2005 PB).

Lapsed Pacifist 17:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've read some the arguements about Kilmicheal, but I don't really think its that important. Probably Barry's version is correct. I recently read a book called "The Face of Battle" by John Keegan, which discusses surrenders in one chapter. Keegan gave a few of examples of British troops killing prisoners (or people who were trying to surrender) during the two world wars - the circumstances described were almost exactly the same as Kilmicheal - false or confused surrenders, with some men still firing, causing casualties to the attackers. The attacking troops then decided all bets were off and just killed all the enemy soldiers -even the ones trying to give themselves up. Probably something like this happened at Kilmicheal. However, from the point of view of the "rules" of war, Barry's orders were illegal in any event, because it is forbidden to kill soldiers who have surrendered (Keegan makes this point about the incidents he lists, although he notes the British Army did not take action against the troops involved).

I remember also reading, in Ernie O'Malley's "On Another Man's Wound", about how his column in Tipperary captured British officers and then later shot them in reprisal for the British killing of republican prisoners. I suppose the point is that in "unofficial" wars, where one side doesn't have legal "combatant" status, you're likely to see a vicious circle of atrocity and reprisal. Jdorney 18:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I take your point about the order's legality. I see Barry's order as trying to send a message, I recall a conversation he had with captured soldiers from another regiment (a Liverpool one, I don't remember its name) when he spelled it out for them that the reason they were only being disarmed and allowed to return to barracks unharmed was that their regiment had a chivalrous reputation, i.e. no ill-treatment of prisoners or civilians or participation in reprisals. Part of it may have been professional disgust at soldiers like those of the Essex regiment, its likely he served with a far higher calibre of British soldier in Iraq. You're right about the nature of the conflict, it did'nt lend itself to chivalry.

Lapsed Pacifist 19:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed not! The civil war even less so. Not too far from where I live, in the Dublin mountains, there's a small monument to Noel Lemass (brother of Sean the 60s taoiseach), who was abducted, beaten and then killed by Free State soldiers during the civil war. His body was dumped in a very lonely spot near Glencree on the road to the Sally Gap. Its a very sad sight. I suspect that this cycle of atrocities happens in all guerrilla wars eventually. Jdorney 21:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Waterford History

Hope these edits are appropriate - haven't used these talk pages before. :) I will get around to the Waterford history after 1850 at some point, if someone doesn't beat me to it. Merlante 09:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair play Jdorney

[edit] Act of Settlement 1657

I noticed that you changed my original forward reference in the Act of Settlement 1652 to be a link to the 1662 Act rather that the 1657 Act. I'm not saying you are wrong - my source was a web page somewhere that I'll struggle to find again - but it does leave the 1657 Act orphaned. Do you have access to any more reliable references that would give it some context? I didn't imagine the reference to a 1657 Act, but your edit puts its existence in doubt. I'll have another search tomorrow. --Red King 22:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll have to look it up, I had just assumed it was a typo to be honest. Apologies if I got it wrong. However, I don't think there was an act in 1657, because that was slap in the middle of Cromwell's reign as protector and he wasn't in the business of apologising to "innocent Catholics". To my knowledge, there were two acts passed to soften the Cromwellian settlement, one in 1662 and then an "act of explantion" in 1665 when that proved ineffective. Do we have an article on an act in 1657?

While we're at it, could I ask a favour? Could you have a look at the battle of the Boyne article? I've changed it a fair bit in the last two days because I thought it was pretty incomprehensible to anyone not already familiar with the topic the way it was. Do you think the changes are worthwhile? Jdorney 23:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

No, you didn't get it wrong - but various sources on the web did. I remember at the time being concerned about it, which is why it remained a red link. The clue is in the title - "Assuming" is wrong, it's "Assuring". That's the testthat sorts the wheat from the chaff. I'll write the Act of Settlement 1657 article shortly, now that I have a few hard facts. It'll remain a stub though, until someone can read the actual Act. I've already done a short para in the Act of Settlement 1652 --Red King 11:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I get it now, it confirming the Cromwellian settlement not alleviating it. That makes sense. Must be honest and admit that I'never heard of its existance before now. Jdorney 17:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of the Boyne

Looks excellent to me. The leaders bit was a little cluttered, I trust you are content with what I've done. Otherwise fine. --Red King 12:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Cheers. I hate cluttered articles as well! Jdorney 17:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Parliament of Ireland

I always thought the parliament before the union was exclusively Anglican, but I've read recently that there was some Presbyterian representation, despite them being subject to the rest of the Penal Laws. Can you throw any light on this?

Lapsed Pacifist 05:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Presbyterians were not barred from voting or sitting in the Irish Parliament, but they were barred after 1704 from holding civil or military office. They were also barred from certain trades and had constraints imposed on inheriting property. However, the Irish Parliament was almost entirely Anglican because there was a property qualification on who was allowed vote and even more restrictive property qualification on who was allowed serve in Parliament. Because Anglicans had got all the best confiscated land in the Plantations and because they held the dominant economic position in Irish society, Presbyterian representation remained very limited. Jdorney 11:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


Once again, thank you very much.

Lapsed Pacifist 17:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

No problem mate! Btw, nice work on the Ernie O'Malley article Jdorney

[edit] Orange Order

It looks as if you may have accidentally chopped off the end of Orange_Order see my comment in Talk:Orange_Order#History.

Redgrittybrick 21:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Have tried to correct it, but the text at the bottom of the page is missing. I don't relly understand what the problem is, but I'm sure someone here can fix it. Just revert it to what it was before my edits if you have to. Jdorney

Fixed now. Redgrittybrick 20:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Petty Kingdoms

Don't you think that you were a bit peremptory in removing 150 years of history to a "see (main) article"? Surely at least a summary should have stayed. You've made it read as though only the English Lord Lieutancy was of any consequence. --Red King 17:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if it loks that way. The thing about it is that the English presence or lack of it really determined the future of the country. All over the place lords of various ethnic origins (Irish, Norman, Scottish) were setting themselves up independently because there was nothing to stop them. I think the details sit better in another article to be honest. Especially since the whole period from 1800-1922 is covered in a short paragraph. If people want ot change it back though, thats ok with me. Jdorney 01:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] O'Neill, not Uí Néill

Hello J. Hope all is okay with you; had a ****** summer health wise myself. Just want to make a wee point; the article on [[Owen Roe O'Neill re-directs O'Neill to Uí Néill, which gives the false impression that they are the same people. The Ui Neill were descendant of Niall Niagiollach, and the O'Neills were descendants of his. However, they take their surname from a much later Niall, not their dynastic ancestor. If you could do a little re-direct along these lines (nothing major) it would be great. Don't be a stranger! Fergananim 20:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not entirely sure what you want me to do with the O'Neill thing. Is there another article is should re-direct to? Hope your're not feeling too bad right now. I had a somewhat stressful summer with work commitments and such like, but otherwise grand. i actually moving to Galway as of next wednesday, so probably won't be contributing much here anymore, as I won't have a computer. All the best, John.Jdorney 18:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia UK/Wikimania 2006

Hi, this is a circular to Wikipedians in Ireland to draw your attention to Wikimedia UK, where the establishment of a local Wikimedia chapter for the United Kingdom (and possibly for the Republic of Ireland) is being discussed. See the talk page, as well as the mailing list; a meetup will take place to discuss matters in London in September, for anyone who can get there. On another topic, plans are being drawn up for a UK bid for Wikimania 2006, which would be conveniently close to Ireland. On the other hand, Dublin's bid was one of the final three last year - might we bid again? --Kwekubo 04:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saying Hello

Hi there, J. Listen, if you're still in Galway - I'm only just after reading the above note! Sorry! - I'd be delighted to meet up with you. Drop me a line on my talk page. I've had a **** of a summer but am good enough to meet up with a chat if you should so care. All the best, Fergananim 23:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, its balianiblin@yahoo.ie Fergananim 19:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of Ireland (cleanup)

No, not my real name! The source text is now on my vanity page.

I'm not a historian! But I'll have a look as I hate cluttered articles. I guess you noticed I spring-cleaned History of Ireland (1801-1922)? --Red King 12:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes fair play. I actually did some of the intro stuff on the history of Ireland page myself when i got access to another computer. I stuck some images in as well. But maybe the whole thing could do with cleaning up and pruning? Jdorney 13:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Well if you did, maybe you won't like what I'm about to propose. I really think that the intro shouldn't be a highlights of the highlights of the highlights. It should simply set the scene for what is to follow. Here is my first cut:
History of Ireland
series
Early history
Early Christian Ireland
Early medieval and Viking era
Norman Ireland
Early Modern Ireland 1536–1691
Ireland 1691–1801
Union with Great Britain
History of the Republic
History of Northern Ireland
Economic history

The History of Ireland is the story of an island on northwest edge of Europe. The principal phases of that story are given in the template to the right and the table of contents below. The first these phases describes the early settlement about ten thousand years ago and ends with the arrival of Christianity. This phase is charcterised by neolithic monuments and artefacts, and Celtic oral history. The early Christian era followed, producing masterpieces such as the Book of Kells. The early medieval era brought Viking raids and then settlement that ended just after the close of the first millenium.

Much of story of the subsequent thousand years is a record of Ireland's strained relations with its larger neighbour and how that experience has formed its culture, its values and its sense of self. It is also characterised by the popular adherence by many of its people to two of the sects of Christianity, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Positively, these have given Irish people access to the broader continental and the anglo-saxon world views; negatively, they have provided the insignia for sectarian conficts that are contrary to the tenets of both.

I see where you're going alright, but I don't know if I agree with that intro. Its a bit too conceptual and not factual enough. If we were condensing it that much, I would rather say something like: 'Ireland was conquered by England and colonised by settlers who were distinguished by their Proestant religion. This led to ongoing sectarian conflicts over land, power and national identity'. I wouldn't see it as the place for a brief introduction to size up the pors and cons of the main branches of christianity in western Europe! Jdorney

It is instructive to look at History of France. I feel the the present HofI is too heavily biased in favour of war and politics, so I was trying to bring out the cultural impact of these. HoF gets round that by running multiple stories in parallel.
Actually I do think that the intro for a long article such as this needs to conceptual and scene-setting. I understand the "tell 'em what you are going to tell 'em, tell 'em, then tell 'em what you've told 'em" model, but an intro that pulls a few arbitrary prime dates without context is really unhelpful. The hard facts come in the narative below and I don't think we should hit people with references in the first sentence.
Maybe what I've written is high falutin', and the religious stuff too strong, but I do feel it important to have a big intro. Your alternative (perhaps intentionally!) is a bit 1066 and all that. --Red King 16:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, well all I had in mind originally here was to fix the broken links in the intro,but reading over it, I can see what you mean, there is far too much detail in it at the moment. Something conceptual would be good, as long as it had a few basic facts in it as well. Jdorney 10:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't know if you've had a chance to take a look, but I've been doing some rather heavy abridging of the article - a great deal of it being good stuff that you contributed. I've moved the original text into the detail articles. It would be good if you could check whether I've lost any key threads or seminal moments. --Red King 23:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New articles

I haven't time to review the articles, but I've updated the template. Brute force and ignorance, I don't know how either, I just modded a URL to get this --Red King 20:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I've grabbed a few minutes to read the new articles. Truly excellent. If I know how to award a barnstar, I'd award you one! I've tidied a few loose ends, nothing major. --Red King 00:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Aw shucks! Thanks Red King. So do you agree we should now be cutting the main history of Ireland article? Also I want to cut right down the history section in the Ireland article. It should be justa paragraph or two like the Scotland article. Jdorney 15:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fiach MacHugh

Thanks for the Baltinglas edit. Do you have any information on the O'Byrne poem book? I mentioned it at the end of the article, but my recollection is vague - I'm sure it went for a large sum at auction, maybe 7/8 years ago. I've posted biog entries for various Munster characters from the period - Miler Magrath, John Norris (soldier), James FitzGerald (Tower Earl of Desmond), Florence MacCarthy (which is yours) etc. - would you run your eye over them and put things right where I've gone wrong?--shtove 21:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll have a look at them. Don't know anything about the original O'Byrne bok, I've seen plenty of copies in second hand book shops though. Jdorney 09:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for all the edits. Impossible situation for Florence MacCarthy - how did he get out of bed in the morning? In James Fitzmaurice Fitzgerald I mention Father Archer (I'll post his biog when I get at my notes), but off the top of my head I guess 1570 is too early for his influence - maybe David Wolfe S.J. was the man giving instruction to Fitzmaurice? On a broader view, shouldn't counter-reformation ideology be all a part of reformation ideology? And is it ideology or theology?--shtove 00:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know much about Archer, have heard his name before though.I know that when Fitzmaurice landed in Ireland in 1579, he was accompanied by an English Catholic priest, Nicholas Sanders. I don't really agree that counter-reformation and reformation thinking are all part of one movement. It would be the same as saying that communism and anti-communism of the cold war era were the same thing, but opposite. Besides, in the reformation case, the thinking of Catholics and the various demoninations of Protestantism on teaching, practice, tactics, political loyalties etc were quite different by the late 16th century. Re ideology v theology, I would use "ideology" in the case of Fitzmaurice or Eoghan Rua O'Neill etc because they were espousing a political interpretation of catholicism (i.e. using it to determine political alliegance), rather than trying to advance specific religious teachings, which they left up to the clergy. Jdorney 11:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree on the ideology point. Don't know about the communism analogy (it's the protestants who'd have to wave the red flag!) - I've always thought the Catholic magisterium is so large it could swallow protestant theology several times over and leave room for dessert: compare Calvin and Jansen on predestination, and ask is anyone really improving on Augustine. That's a theological point, but on ideology relating to the state the opposing labels may be justified. Nicholas Sanders is an example of a political priest (as is Archer) - I beefed up his biog a few days ago (changing "agent" to "priest" - Tudor enthusiasts love to describe unsympathetic minor characters as "agents"). The reason I keep doing these biogs is that I found they're the only reliable way in to understanding the period - along with a detailed map of the territories everyone was fighting over. When I think about it, protestants waving the red flag isn't far off the mark.--shtove 16:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gerald Fitzgerald, 15th Earl of Desmond

Wasn't the rebel earl of Desmond killed at Glenageenty in 1583 the 14th earl, rather than the 15th? I don't want to move the article without consulting, but all my links referring to him cite him as the 15th. The Tower Earl is referred to as the 15th, but then that earldom was created on a different basis to the original, in which case he was the 1st. Oh crap. This may be a Hugh O'Neill situation. On "Follow me up to Carlow" (the remix) - is a song written 300 years after the event worth citing as a commemoration?--shtove 17:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't know which number earl, I'd have to look it up. Follow me up to Carlow was in the article before I got there. I don't see why it had to be removed to be honest. You could say its a 19c song if you want I suppose. Jdorney 15:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Catholic Rebels

I'm a relative newby, so I'd like your opinion on putting up this article for deletion. I live in the east end of Glasgow and I haven't seen any ICR grafitti. Even if there was, do we really think that an encyclopedia is the place to highlight every gang that comes along? It's also a magnet for the kind of idiot that posted the first remark on the talk page. Camillustalk|contribs 22:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Its clearly a wind up by a rangers fan with too much time on his hands. Hopefully it'll be deleted shortly. Can't blame him for trying though! Jdorney 01:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Excise the dreaded word "Celtic"

Thanks for the heads-up, J. Hope my contribution help. Nollaig Shona! Fergananim 13:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gallowglass

I just want to thank you for the good work done on expanding the Gallowglass article. I made one or two small additions, but there was nothing I found wrong with it. Maith an fear! Grimhelm 5:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a WP:TFD vote to delete Template:Irish Republicanism. In my view the template is fatally flawed in a host of areas, littered with inaccuracies and would be a guaranteed source of endless POV battles between SFs, RSFs, 32 County nutcases, etc etc. We only need to look at the POV nightmares at the various IRA pages to see the nightmares that could be caused by a template that tries to describe who is in and who is outside Irish republicanism, who is a key figure and who isn't. Redking made an interesting suggestion in the debate where he suggested that in effect the template is part if a campaign of normalisation of the Provos to make them legitimate. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Republicanism template

I see your point, although I wouldn't have a major problem with a Free State or History of the United Kingdom template there as well. Do you think we should limit the use of the template to the organisations and figures listed on it?

Lapsed Pacifist 21:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thats my opinion alright. Jdorney


I think part of the problem, as you mentioned at the deletion debate, is that the template is currently slanted heavily towards latter-day republicanism, e.g. half of the organisations listed didn't exist before the Troubles. That said, republicanism played a huge, if not pivotal, role in both conflicts and the events surrounding them. It wasn't the whole story, but it was a very important part.

Lapsed Pacifist 21:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but is the importance of the civil war etc primarily its influence on the INLA? You see the point I'm making. Anyway, I'll leave it for now and let the majority decision on deletion stand. If its kept, I'd like it ammended and used for organisations and individuals rahter than events. Incidentally, I've been working on the Irish nationalism article, which was a right mess, you might be interested in having a look. I've also noticed that the Irish Republicanism article is in poor shape and that the Anglo-Irish War article has got very flabby, with loads of small details clouding the bigger picture. Jdorney 22:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Hugh O'Neill

I've just added to your latest edits. A couple of old POV bits were removed (his failure to extract full advantage from his successes - I think we'd have to have been there to judge how difficult the situation was for him). I also changed all Tyrone-s to O'Neill-s. The article still needs a legacy section and portraits. Did you get round to the 14th/15th Earl of Desmond question? The guy opposing me is a peerage enthusiast who reckons Burke's can be inaccurate: his online peerage link suggests confusion because the first lord of Desmond was also the first earl of Desmond.--shtove 21:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

According to Colm Lennon's 16th century Ireland, he was the 15th Earl alright. Lennon is usually pretty reliable. re O'Neill, i'm not sure how helpfull the 1911 encyclopedia articles are to be honest, they're usually very POV and confusingly written and occsionally very innaccurate. But they're there now, so we have to clean them up the best we can. Jdorney 21:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Happy New Year btw!

[edit] Ta

I seem to be running into your comments on one or two pages at the moment :-) You comment on Talk:Irish Republican Army "LP and PBS at the same time is strange experience" It was for me as well!

I basically agree with your comments on Talk:Genocides in history and hope you will stick around to help improve the article. I don't really have the stomach for it thought as I think like List of massacres it is next to impossible to fix. :-(

Finally I am not at all impressed with the template History of war as it keeps getting bigger and bigger. See my comment on Template talk:History of war. A lot of the articles it includes seem to be in the form of a school boy essays, (which I suppose can only get better). For example I was about to add a comment on Talk:Gunpowder warfare about the "not particularly deadly" comment to find you have already said if for me. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, we've run into each other quite a bit in the last year - mainly in articles realting to the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. Yeah, the genocide article is a complete mess, but I get the sinking feeling that it's impossible to edit because people will just keep coming back and adding more garbage to it.

I agree about the template, but I'm more worried about the Gunpowder Warfare article to be honest.First of all, its name should never have been changed from Early Modern Warfare. Basically , the whole article is based on the book the "Military Revolution" by Michael Roberts, which is now 50 years old and totally out of date. I left hose comments months ago and should really have have sone something about it before now. The problem is that its not that badly written, the content is just wrong, but it needs to be totally re-written. What do you think about drawing up a list of corrections that need to be made and things that need to be re-written and then having a go at hte article? Jdorney 13:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] 16thC. articles

Thanks for your note. The category is a good idea, but I've never created one; once it is created, an effort could be made to cement all the mutual links and sort out disambiguations. The reason I put so much in to Florence MacCarthy is that I could only ever understand him from his circumstances, rather than what he did, ie. it's the inheritance and the legal disputes that made him important to the English. I'd go for accuracy over readability in the first place, but then it's a question of skill in paring down the accurate into the readable - I take your point about the average reader, so good luck with that. Tudor re-conquest of Ireland is good (I'd prefer if the title read Reconquest); as for Early Modern Ireland, personally I won't contribute beyond 1613, as I'd be prone to blunders; I may put in bits and pieces on constitutional and legal stuff, but I've nothing off the top of my head. I have notes on most of the battles you mention, so I'll add those in under the titles you list in your note (should battle be capitalised? Battle of Glenmalure?). Regards.--shtove 13:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Clontibret

I've just posted Battle of Clontibret - wot u fink?--shtove 23:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a message on this article stating it's probably Wikipedia's 900,000th. There is a cash prize.--shtove 13:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Affane

I've done my best with Battle of Affane.--shtove 21:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. The language you're modernising (?) is not Falls' but mine! Rascals is the term used by Maurice Fitzgerald in his answers to interrogatories after the battle - he wasn't referring to scouts (Desmond had been assessing Ormonde's army in full), but probably to kerne: perhaps the bland "an inferior force" will do, or can you think of a better term? Espied - isn't it a military term? But spotted is as well. OK. What else? Exchange of gunfire - OK. And if men were drowning on their way to the Blackwater river, it must have been in sorrow. Falls is a solid state papers man, but he's very brief on this battle. The state papers are the only real source of information here. AOB: what about the term coyne and livery?--shtove 23:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the style and accuracy issues on this are OK now. Take a look.--shtove 13:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carrigafoyle

I've posted Siege of Carrigafoyle Castle for the Desmond Rebellions - link on Irish Battles????--shtove 15:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep an eye out. User:Ruy Lopez is up to his old stunt on Irish pages, ie adding in republican spins and propaganda and a pro-IRA slant. Keep an eye out. He seems to get this fixation every so often. Is it linked to moon-phases? lol FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] [Ruy Lopez Defence (and various other things)

Ok, will check my watch list. I'll have a look at Irish Nationalism too. By the way, I've started a new article Sinn Féin (1905 - 1921) with a view to collecting the references in many articles, intended to refer to historical Sinn Féin, but that currently link to the Adams Family or the Brady Bunch. Right now, it is a straight copy of the content on the PSF article, but I plan to read some more with a view to creating a self-standing article that won't fall straight away to an RtMerge. I'm no historian, so if you have time to develop it, please go right ahead. --Red King 00:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Curlew Pass

Had a lash at this one using Falls (really, he is hip and modern), and left a query on the discussion page. Can't find my notes on Moyry Pass - yet. Where's the Florence MacCarthy rewrite? I'd be interested in the parts of your thesis dealing with Lords Barry and Roche (the general scene in Cork county), and particularly with the Waterford judge, Nicholas Walsh. There is some side-bar e-mail arrangement in Wikipedia, but I don't understand it. Have you seen the nonsense over the title of Yom Kippur War? If you didn't take that title as the name of the war, the only way you'd get at the article is through reading for links on related pages.--shtove 23:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Nationalism

There is a suspect anon edit to this - apart from the strange insertion of "[[link title]]" (?) it looks almost convincing, though a bit of a PoV essay. Since it is your field, you might check it. --Red King 23:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. One useful technique is to spawn a sub-article and then when someone adds detail to the main, you just move it to the detailed sub-article and drop the editor a note to explain what you've done and why you've done it, that their edit has merit but it is too detailed for what has to be a superficial overview. I've done that on History of Ireland. So the edit in question could be moved over to Irish Land League? --Red King 17:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Kings

Hi J. Afraid I will have to disagree with you on this point. If you check out references from the annals you will indeed find them refered to as Kings, not chieftains. The following are extracts taken from the Annals of Ulster:

"1416: Domnall, son of Tigernan Mor Ua Ruairc, namely, one who was to be king of Breifni, died this year of the small pox. Ardghal, son of Brian Mor Mag Mathgamna, namely, king of Oirgialla, died this year and his son took his place after him, that is, Brian."

"1417: Mac Murchadha, namely, king of Leinster, that is, Art, son of Art Caemanach, to wit, the Provincial who was best of hospitality and prowess and charity that was in his own time, died in his own stronghold this year, after victory of Unction and penance.Ruaidhri, son of Murchadh Ua Flaithbertaigh, namely, son of the king of the West of Connacht and the son of Diarmait Ua Flaithbertaigh the Black were drowned, and sixteen men of the Ui-Flaithbertaigh were drowned along with them on Cuan-Umaill."

"1505: A hosting by the son of O'Domnaill, namely, Aedh junior, son of Aedh the Rough, into Tir-Eogain and the town of O'Neill (namely, the town of Domnall O'Neill) and the town of Aedh, son of Domnall O'Neill, and the town of Brian, son of Domnall O'Neill, were burned by him and from Abhann-mor inward was traversed by him without opposition, without contest. And he sat under Castle Derg on his return and the castle was taken by him and his own warders were left in it and he went from that to Cell-mic-nEnain and was proclaimed king over Tir Conaill, on the 2nd day of the month of August, by will of God and men and so on."

"1528:O'Briain, king of Thomond,namely, Toirdelbach, son of Tadhg, died after spending his natural age for very great part in prosperity and happiness, in hospitality and in nobleness, in subduing his foes and in protecting his friends, so that other power of Foreigners or Gaidhil lay not on his district during the length of his lordship. And his son, namely, Concobur, was made king in his place. The daughter of O'Briain, namely, Finghuala, queen of Tir-Conaill—the woman who was the best that was in Ireland at one time with herself as regards God and the world, to wit, Eimer for fidelity and Una for hospitality and the precious fair stone of Dal-Cais and most eminence of the worthy women of all Ireland—died after Unction and after penance, after being two and twenty years in the habit of St. Francis, preserving her widowhood and doing alms-deeds and humanity and benefaction."

"1584:Brian, son of Donchadh Mag Uidhir, the son of a king that was of best hospitality and prowess, spirit and bravery and was of best knowledge of every science, died this year. And he that shall read, let him bestow benison on his soul."

Plus, if you look at one of my main sources for these lists - volume 9 of the New History of Ireland - all the major dynastys are referred to as Kings, right into the 1600's. These men (and women) were the aristocracy of our country, were themselves the descendants of kings, and rightly considered themselves kings. That's why so many who did not achieve kingship were nevertheless listed as righdamna - kingly material, in the sence of a prince or someone in line/with a valid claim on a crown. Fergananim 21:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Provos

Ok. You could ask User:Curps too, he did a great job fighting off vandals on €2 commemorative coins. --Red King 19:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


You're right. While that user may be on to something with the pre-ceasefire targeting of loyalists, the rest is bogus. Any assistance to the Provisionals from the Eastern Bloc would have been at a few removes, filtered first through Arab governments, then insurgent groups.

Lapsed Pacifist 10:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dorney - I've left you a reply on my own talk page. I'm not sure how this messaging system works, so that's why I'm leaving you a message here. --Mal 23:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Citation is now included, though please see my talk page for more info. :) --Mal 00:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

JD, regarding your recent addition about Bloody Friday - I had previously understood bombs to have went off across Northern Ireland. Was the event confined solely to Belfast? Also - should it be noted that many people assumed Bloody Friday was in response to Bloody Sunday? --Mal 13:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks JD - I could have looked the information up myself I suppose, or tried to remember. But I had assumed you'd verified your knwoledge of the event prior to adding the information and I thought it was more prudent to ask you instead. As for the possibility of the event having been retaliation for Bloody Sunday, I fully accept the explaination you gave me. I had heard the suggestion that it had been in retaliation but, having read about the event some months back, your explaination fits with historical accounts. I think the name was given because the phrase was simply a 'buzz word' at the time, and "bloody" merely indicated a high level of death and carnage. Once again, thanks JD. :) --Mal 22:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Kings, Cheiftains, Chief of the Name

Well, I don't want to fall out with you over it, so why not meet halfway? We'll call rulers of substancial territorys Kings, those who rule anything down to the size of a parish a lord or chieftain. Remember, you could be a king and chief of the name at the same time. Fergananim 19:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trim castle

There is a new, though not very good, image at Trim. I didn't think it worth adding to Norman Ireland but you might disagree. --Red King 21:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I am opening a WP:RfA against Lapsed Pacifist. As someone who has had to deal with his endless POVing you might like to contribute. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


Hey,

A dispute is on which might be of interest to you. You probably have heard of the US periodical, The Nation. It is one of a number of publications that exist or have existed using that name. However some US Wikipedians have decreed that all other publications of that name must be shunted off to a disam page with the US publication given sole custody of The Nation page, even though neither it nor any other publication with that name is international nor widely known outside each state's border. The confusion this causes can be seen in the fact that people making entries to the Thailand newspaper, the British magazine, the famous 19th century Irish paper, etc usually end up innocently creating links to the US periodical page on The Nation rather than the obscure disamb page (which is only found by a link at the top of the US article). It is blatently wrong. While most links are for the US publication, that is because most contributors on WP are US and the US publication covers a lot of people mentioned on WP. If the US publication was something like Time or Newsweek or The Times then one could justify it getting the main page. But even many US people have not heard of the US magazine and it is largely unheard of outside the US. Technically the Irish newspaper is more international in noteworthyness — it features in history books in Australia, the US, the UK etc because it was a prominent politically motivated radical newspaper in the 19th century. But IMHO it too does not enough international recognition to justify getting pride of place and claiming the name for itself.

The dispute is at Talk:The Nation. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: SITHMA

Thanks for your praise. Early Christian Ireland 400–800 and Early Medieval Ireland 800-1166 do tickle my fancy (the current titling is a little redundant though); early medieval Ireland possessed one of the most amazing and well-documented cultures in Europe in the period, and it would be nice to give it good articles. Early Christian Ireland should be straight-forward; early Christian Ireland would repeat a little, but contain more of the historical narrative. Norman Ireland, I probably can't help with. It looks OK as it is, but more importantly, the article as it stands is about one process - not the country Ireland as it was in that era. Moreover, I don't have the books (although I could borrow them) to do the topic justice. What I have in mind is following the format outlined in Scotland in the High Middle Ages, not just relating political narrative; so it is necessary to assemble a large number of books to make the article half-decent. Anyways, it'll all have to wait until later in the month. Regards, - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem the two articles have, and the three sections in the History of Ireland article also have, is overly focusing on one phenomenon. The section on early christian ireland in the HoI badly needs redone; it focuses on religious myths, without giving much impression of scholarly care. The early medieval article is focused on Vikings, the Norman article is focused on Normans. The thing is, ignoring these small communities of invaders, Ireland was a Gaelic land which absorbed these invaders in turn; the vast corpus of info on Ireland in the periods is not spoken of, and periodizing with reference to these people isn't very helpful to understanding the country of Ireland as a whole in the period. What would you think about two articles following the Scotland format: Ireland in the Early Middle Ages (i.e. 400-1014), Ireland in the High Middle Ages (1014-1318) and Ireland in the Late Middle Ages (i.e. 1318-1536)? I'd be little help for the last, but the other two I could produce something (although not with the same level of scholarship as SITHMA). BTW, my experience with the FA process tells me the History of Ireland article has no chance of being made featured, unless serious work is made on inline citations and references. Anyways, I'll be happy to help on the medieval stuff around the end of this month, as I am currently on a de facto wikibreak owing to other activities. Regards, - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Tha beagan agam. Tha mi ag ionnsachadh Gàidhlig, ach chan eil Gaeilge agam. ATM though, I have been giving myself some Old Irish. Anyways, I hope that when I'm finished doing what I'm doing at the end of the month, that I'll be able to help with some of the projects. You're right that this is how scholars usually periodize Irish history; it's just that historians, being the creatures they are, always like to focus on change at the expense of continuity. Well, I don't want to overhaul the system atm; it will be, however, much easier to write a good article if I can group the two earlier articles together. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Just eavesdropping on discussion above, I think that Calgacus's suggestion "Ireland in the Early Middle Ages (i.e. 400-1014), Ireland in the High Middle Ages (1014-1318) and Ireland in the Late Middle Ages (i.e. 1318-1536)" is an excellent one - it would completely turn on its head the tradtional view of Irish history as being delineated by conquest and the whole victim mentality that goes with it. I immagine that it is a massive task / labour of love and I'm afraid one for a serious historian. The best I can offer is to proof-read. --Red King 20:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I second that motion. I do have a great number of texts on these subjects but my blasted illness has long prevented me from doing my bit for the subject. Ta bron orm.Fergananim 17:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] War of Independence, Civil War

Yes, that makes sense. You will certainly need to cite your sources as it is a very difficult and painful period. I could never get my grandparents to talk about the Civil War. --Red King 20:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sunday Ind and pregnant woman (Dublin riot)

Hey JD. I was wondering about that part of the article. You mention the Sunday Independant, though I had seen this incident reported in a couple of other newspapers also. They were the Belfast Telegraph and the Newsletter. Granted, these papers (and the Independant) could be considered as not very pro-republican, I remember hearing it on a local TV report also. I don't consider local TV news coverage to be in any way biased - certainly not in this day and age anyway. Further to that, the incident has been mentioned in one or two respectable nationalist websites. I'm just wondering if the wording of that sentence should not be changed. Cheers. --Mal 15:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, and the same would obviously apply from the opposite sphere. I do think the article is still probably quite POV, and the edits to it quite often reflect this. I'd never suggest that I am totally unbiased when it comes to Northern Irish politics, though I will always maintain that I make the effort not to be biased. There may be times when you and I will conflict over articles in the future, though I also note that you also try very hard to maintain an unbiased editing policy (noted from your edits to the PIRA article), despite your personal opinions. In that regard, I believe that we will probably always be able to (eventually) reach a compromise regarding any disputes. Regarding this particular incident, I think it shoud remain in the article because, obviously punching a pregnant woman in the stomach is a 'notable' event, no matter who the alleged culprit(s) is(are). The wording might be changed to reflect that it was reported by more than just one news source (if you have not done so already). But the important thing is to note that this happened as part of the event, and not necessarily by way of blaming 'those nasty Republicans'.. if you understand me! Anyway, keep up the good work. --Mal 18:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your addition to the discussion on my talk page re "Northern Irish" JD. I left you a reply there. Quick link to it here. --Mal 19:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PIRA article

Hi JD. In the "Strategy 1969-1998" section, I noticed Danny Morrison was quoted "Ballot Box in one hand and the Armalite in the other". I was wondering if he had, like a lot of Republicans, kind of mellowed in more recent years, and perhaps a note to that effect could be applied to Morrison just after his quote. Just a suggestion of course, as you seem to be one of the main contributers to the article. Cheers. --Mal 00:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I left you a reply on my talk page. --Mal 12:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deutsche Desmond

I see German WP has a linked article on the Desmond Rebellions - can't tell if it's a version of the En WP article. See - people do pay attention to your efforts.--shtove 17:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell if it's a version of your article? You'll have to start making contributions to the Martin Luther and Adolf Hitler pages next. Maybe you could follow up the German editor - there is a remarkable record of German interest in Irish history - and try an Inter-Wiki link-up for the full series of articles on the 16thC. Apart from that, I think an article on English colonial ideology - with Tudor Ireland as the starting point - would be good. I'm more one for details than ideas, but I have chipped in at British Empire to try and get some attention for the subject there. Could you recommend articles/contributors that may help? Canny's book Making Ireland British is full of it, but I haven't had access to that for a couple of years.--shtove 21:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Siege of Carrigafoyle Castle is now in German too: it's a translation and (shame) carries a map of the Shannon estuary. The common denominator is Thpohl, whose user page lists a variety of Irish history-related articles. On British Empire, I'm putting the Tudor Ireland case in the latest discussion there (concerning the global map that has the Netherlands and post-WWII Axis territories in glorious pink!) Nat & Newc was edited by Brady - I'd forgotten I have a copy. I've never heard of Hagan. Agree on Ellis.--shtove 15:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Republican Army

Hey, in this edit you said you were removing vandalism, i guess you removing the addation of Finbar Gallivan, but when you reverted it, about the last thrid of the article was wiped. I revereted it back to the 15:22, 15 March 2006 edition to re add the missing txt but to leave out the "new" addation, considering i didnt think that you ment to delet the end of the article. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

N/P I kinda figured as much, i think i recall you mentioning something to that effect before. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ublock me please

I have been blocked for some unknown reason. I suspect that one of the other 10,000 or so users here in the university of Galway who share this IP is the intended blockee, but I haven't done anythin to get blocked to my knowledge.

Jdorney 13:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I need to know your IP address to unblock you, as the block is on the IP, not the account name. Please go to this page and tell me your IP so I can unblock it. --Cyde Weys 00:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone has sorted it now, thanks. Jdorney 14:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote on pregnant woman incident

There is curently a vote taking place on 2006 Dublin riots talk page on whether info on the pregnant woman incident should be removed. --Beta 11:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battleboxes

I see you've put in a good few of these recently. If you've any plans to add maps and images I'd be happy to help - I just need a bit of guidance. Every time I look into this kind of stuff I get lost and lose enthusiasm. Hope UCG is treating you well - all the good stuff is kept in the basement of the Hardiman. I suppose Nicholas Canny is still there?--shtove 12:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Flickr is a good place for finding photos of Irish places - you just have to ask permission and link them in.--Shtove 20:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce Wars in Ireland

I've being doing some long-overdue edits to Edward Bruce, particularly under the headings "The Invasion of Ireland" and "Arrival and the Campaign of 1315". I began it because the original article was hopelessly wrong in many places, but am now wondering if what I am writing would be better suited as an article in its own right on the Irish Bruce wars? Check it out or I'll tell auld Nick on ya!Fergananim 19:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish National Liberation Army

I think your browser must be getting the best of you again, [4], or that was some strange edit thing or something? --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah i dont get why that happend either, i can see the blanking becaus of page size ans it's related effect, but the substution of characters i dont get, strange/ Yeah i'll take care of the PIRA thing, if you see anything else just let me know, btw could Devin79 and RMS be the same person, that have differeing M/O's but their are similarties in their style, anyway i am still awating to see theses "admins" that he says that he has sopken to come foward. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish American

I dont know how much you are up on the subject but i was curious of what you think of Discrimination and Prejudice section, i marked it with a pov template a bit back due to the way it comes across and the arragoance of the person behind it, their is some commnets in regards on the talk page, i figure i get some other opinion from a "respected" editor on here in the area of irish related articles. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah i seriously do belive that the artile is lacking in those areas espically, espically in the areas of the Nativist, one of the major ones i can think of it the Philadelphia Nativist Riots, which would later laed to several election riots, but my concer was with what was the wording of the section, in how, as i see it, was nothing more then a self promoting of a research paper written by a user, their have been attempts to soften the tone, but to no avial, though another user seems to be trying to again. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
N/P, i'll admint that i am not always clear in what i try to put across. mY concerns was that this person, if he is who he says he is, had the article published, and that becuased it was published it should be take as gosple and not challanged, the fact that i have yet to see a real peer review of the publication troubles me though, condier that this person was a professor of history at a University, to me though it was more that he was trying to push this view, and using the publication as the justification as a reason, which also makes me wonder how many time this person had their materials published. Anway i agree with the inclusing of addational background on the subjext and the narrowness of the current version, which feeds off of pop-culture in my opinion. Mainly though i am just making sure i am not out of line in my thinking of the presentation. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 02:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advice on how to deal with irate new user

Hi, As you've an interest in Irish republicanism, I'd like your help or advice on how best to deal with user User:Fluffy999. He's contributed some great, detailed stuff on German espionage in Ireland during WWII. The problem is that he tends to overreact to any edits I make (see User talk:Fluffy999 and Talk:S-Plan).--Damac 09:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basil Brooke quote

Hi, im not sure if you just introduced the quote for Basil Brookeborough into article the Troubles (the article appears to be changing around) but its actually a misquote of Sir James Craig:

"I have always said I am an Orangeman first and a politician and Member of this Parliament afterwards ... The Hon. Member must remember that in the South they boasted of a Catholic State. They still boast of Sourthern Ireland being a Catholic State. All I boast is that we are a Protestant Parliament and Protestant State."

Sir James Craig, Unionist Party, then Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, 24 April 1934 [often misquoted as: 'A Protestant Parliament for a Protestant People', or 'A Protestant State for a Protestant People'.] from here, its also slightly POVish as it was either made in response to de Valera's "we are a catholic nation" speech or made before it.

[edit] Hello

I would like to make a complaint against a user, how do I do this? Thanks Fluffy999 15:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI, he's referring to me. This has arisen over my request that he pay more attention to the way he uploads images to Wikpedia. See User_talk:Fluffy999#Naming_of_uploaded_photo_files for our discussion regarding same.--Damac 16:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Left word on User talk:Pedant hopefully he can assist in making this treatment stop or at least get it directed elsewhere. Fluffy999 16:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Jesus guys, sort it out yourselves will you? I'm not an admin anyway. Jdorney 17:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christmas Raid

Thanks, forgot to put it in, its also remarkable because it convinced the Germans that the IRA were a credible force, see IRA Abwehr WW2. Fluffy999 15:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Irish Stubs

I've added a few more stubs, and hope to have a few more done before too long. Nothing too adventerious, but hopefully of interest. Knock yourself out. Fergananim 17:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Covenanters

Thanks for your note. Yes, you are quite right, there was indeed much more to the whole Covenanter movement than the issues raised by religion. Even the National Covenant of 1638, when much of the verbiage is cut away, contains a core principle that was to become central to all democratic movements-that there should be no innovations in policy and practice that had not first been tested by free assemblies of the people. The Scottish Parliament before 1638 was still very much draped in an ancient medieval garb, and was centuries behind the development of its English cousin. Business was filtered through a Committee known as the Lords of the Articles, made up of crown appointees, who then presented bills to the uni-cameral assembly. Members were expected to vote yes or no without further debate. There was one infamous occasion at the Parliament of 1633, when Charles I in person noted down the names of those voting against his measures, 168 of which were rushed through in a single day. In the period after 1638 up to Charles' visit to Edinburgh in 1641 all of this had changed: Parliament had acquired an self-assurance that pushed it in some respects even beyond that shown at Westminster. There were other areas too, including trade and the economy, where the Covenanters began to demostrate initiative and independence.

In general I agree that this article needs to be expanded and refined. The problem is trying also to ensure that it is manageable. Rcpaterson 23:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello! The short answer to your question is yes, it did; thought not immediately. Following the Restoration the old Parliamentary apparatus was reconstituted, including the Lords of the Articles. The new parliament gave the same exaggerated show of loyalty as the Cavalier Parliament in England; though as time was to show it had, also like the Cavalier Parliament, not completely forgotten the past. In 1673, the same year that Westminster began to challenge the religious policy of Charles II, a 'party' emerged in Edinburgh demanding that various grievances be settled prior to granting supply, to the considerable astonishment of the Duke of Lauderdale, the king's Scottish plenipotentiary. Lauderdale's ultimate solution was to manage without parliament altogether, a path that Charles himself was to follow in 1681 with the Exclusion Parliament. After the downfall of James VII and II the Scottish Parliament was reconstituted yet again, without the Lords of the Articles, which disappeared forever. For a time it looked as if the new independent minded assembly was on a collision course with its English cousin, especially on the question of the royal succession. All outstanding differences were resolved by the Union of 1707.

After the union Scotland entered the age of the great party managers, which only really came to an end in the ninteenth century. Men like Archiblad, earl of Islay, and later Henry Dundas were effectively able to deliver a 'block' of MPs in support of the government of the day, first the Whigs and later the Tories. Most of the ninteenth century was dominated by the Whig/Liberal party, at least until the split over Gladstone's Irish Home Rule Bill.

Sorry to go on at such length. Rcpaterson 22:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The Liberal party split nationally in 1886, with those opposed to Gladstone on the Home Rule issue leaving to form the Liberal Unionist party. In Scotland the split gave the Tories an opportunity to emerge from the political crypt they had been encased in for most of the century. The two elements entered into an electoral pact, which lasted until 1912, when they merged to form the Scottish Unionist Party, which was the official name of the Conservative Party in Scotland until 1965. The Union in question, of course, is not that of 1707 but 1801. In 1965 the party was renamed as the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, which is the case to the present day. Rcpaterson 23:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to ask as many questions as you like: I will always do my best to answer.

Unionism in late ninteenth and early twentieth century Scotland displayed, at root, the same kind of features as the contemporary version in Northern Ireland: principally a shared Protestant identity cutting across the class divisions that influenced politics elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The Liberal Unionists had a leadership which for a variety of political, economic and religious issues felt threatened by the Irish Home Rule Bill. The approach they took, emphasising the importance of Imperial unity, had a particular appeal in the Lowlands of Scotland, especially in Glasgow, which prided itself on the title 'second city of the Empire.' The fear was that a break up of the Empire-and Irish Home rule was considered to be the first step in this process-would destroy the local economy, geared as it was to an export market. The issue was also complicated by the migration to Glasgow and the west of Scotland in particular of people from both the north and south of Ireland. Hostility towards the Catholic working class, largely fueled by fears that they would threaten jobs and undercut pay rates, led to an upsurge in support for the Orange Order, and periodic bouts of inter-communal violence. The politics of the Unionists were nearly always Imperial in their dimensions, rather than Scottish as such. The end of the Empire, and the industrial decline of Scotland, led to the steady decay of working-class unionism, reflected in the near electoral extinction of the Conservative and Unionist Party. Nowadays, the Protestant working class in Glasgow, for example, is just as likely to vote Labour as their Catholic neighbours, whatever residual sectarian divisions continue to exist.

Yes, you are right; it is worth including some information on the impact of the Covenanters on the evolution of Parlaiment. There are one or two other areas which could be improved. Give me a week or so! Rcpaterson 00:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Battle Of Inverkeithing

Given your interest in the Civil Wars I thought I would draw your attention to the treatment I have given to the 1651 Battle of Inverkeithing. It was a very sketchy stub before.

Although smaller than Dunbar, and now generally little known, it was the crucial victory of Cromwell's Scottish war, and the opening act of a drama on which the curtain fell later in the same season at Worcester. Rcpaterson 01:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There are no precise details, as far as I am aware, on Lambert's casualties; though I suspect they would have been fairly modest. Rcpaterson 22:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The Troubles

Well done on that excellent work you did revising/rewriting the article. It is in a much better condition now. I am ashamed I put that note up there on the talkpage and forgot the whole thing. But i will try to add. Cheers again! -- max rspct leave a message 11:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wars of Independence and such.

Hello again. I just thought I would let you know that I have not forgotten about amending the Covenanter article in the light of your observations. However, I have been giving much of my recent attention to writing, correcting and amending articles on the personalities and battles of the Scottish Wars of Independence. In no particular order these are Battle of Dornock, Battle of Culblean, Battle of Boroughmuir, Battle of Old Byland,Battle of Halidon Hill, Battle of Pass of Brander,Battle of Stanhope Park, Battle of Myton, Battle of Dupplin Moor, Battle of Stirling Bridge, Battle of Dunbar, Battle of Methven, Battle of Bannockburn, Battle of Falkirk, Henry Beaumont, 4th Earl of Buchan and Sir Andrew Murray. It is only when I list it like this I realise how much ground has been covered! Anyway, if you have the time-or the inclination-you are welcome to have a look and make any amendments you consider necessary. Dornock, Culblean, Boroughmuir, Old Byland, Stanhope Park, Brander, Myton, Henry Beaumont and Andrew Murray are all original pieces. The others are rewrites-some quite major-of a number of lamentably poor articles. I did see your request for an expansion of the Battle of Faughart. Though this is slightly outwith my area of immediate expertise I will (eventually) give it a go, if I am not beaten to it! Regards. Rcpaterson 04:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Madrid

Being removed at present from most of my sources I might find it hard to contribute anything of substance, but I'll certainly lend a hand wherever I can. Great job so far! Albrecht 20:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] REd Branch knights

Was it you who did the editing on the RBK's page?If so i appauld you for your good work and it was something i had planned to do.And yes there was a loyalist paramilitary group called that.Look up the Cain websiteDermo69

[edit] Battle of Preston

I think you might have some interest in the Battle of Preston (1648). I will be starting work on the Covenanters in the next few days. I warning notice has been flagged up on the talk page! Best wishes. Rcpaterson 04:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ulster

Re: your change to the Ulsterisation page - Ulster. Each community has it's own terms of reference to Northern Ireland. The unionist community defines the province as Ulster. That is not 'incorrect' - It is fact that most unionists regard and refer to their home as Ulster (which makes up the bulk of the historical province of Ulster)


[edit] 16thC stuff

Thanks for the comment on Spanish Armada in Ireland. I'm having a look at Old English (Ireland) - I don't have any source material to add, and will see if I can restructure - but it's tricky to cut and paste with a well-written article. The expansion of Florence MacCarthy is good. There's now Second Desmond Rebellion, by User:Rye1967, who's linking away on the late 16thC articles. Good opportunity to post a Siege of Smerwick article (and John of Desmond) - it's the biggest gap in the list of battles. Any progress in the pictures/maps department?--Shtove 19:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Desmond Rebellions

Hi, I have reverted your revert of my changes to the Desmond Rebellions article because I have included most of the content from the pargraphs in question into the new article. In my view, the paragraphs in the Desmond Rebellions article should then be a summary, not a repeat of the information, so I pruned them according, removing detailed facts which would not detract from the understanding of reader, but could be found in the detailed article.

Not sure what your reason is, but let me know what you think.

As background, I set out to write the new article because there were multiple copies of the existing information in various other articles, many contadicting one another, some with links to other articles, some without. For more info on these contradictions see Talk:Second Desmond Rebellion. Can you help with any of the issues there? The best way to avoid the contradictions issue is to collect the info in one place and link to it from everywhere else, with summaries in the linking articles.

Actually, I set out to write on the Siege of Smerwick, but when I started collecting the background info, it turned into an article on the Second Rebellion. An actual acticle on the Siege would be great, but I think the current info in WP is too short for an article and I don't have access to any addtional information.

Finally, I almost missed your revert because it was tagged as a minor change with no subject description ;) --Rye1967 20:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

J, Thx for your response and apology. I've had changes reverted before but what provoked me on this one was that there was no reason given, so nothing that I could debate. I now think that my own revert was also provocative, done in frustration, and I apologise for that.
I agree that the original paragraphs were fairly short, and well written. My intention was to make it shorter, which isn't really necessary, I agree.
However, I also felt that some of the facts in there are 'minor' and should be in the detail article only, such as
Fitzm making the argument that Elziabeth was a heretic
That the exact support of the Pope/Philip II was indulgence, troops, treasure, taking Ireland as a posesession
That John of Desmond had a large following among his kinsment
That the Earl actuallly joined when he was considred a traitor
The name of the temporary king of Ireland
That the price for the Earls slaying was 1000 in silver and that the head was displayed in cork
If those facts were to be in the summary then there were other 'minor' facts of equal importance that should also be included (eg that he captured some English ships en-route, that the Earl of Ormonde joined the English forces etc), so I considered it better to remove all 'minors', which had the additional benefit of shortening it.
There were some major facts missing such as that the ships were siezed immediately
More importantly, there were inaccuracies in that summary eg that the invasion landed at Dingle, that 600 re-inforcments arrived at Smerwick after CarriagaFoyle, that Grey-De Wilton arrived before Carraigafoyle
Some other minor changes such as saying 'The O'Moriarty clan' rather than clan O'Moriarty, it referred to Smerwick castle instead of Smerwick fort
So now, as long as you know what I think, I am ok if you want to restore to the original and just fix the inaccuracies
My whole project was triggerd by seeing your redlink 'siege of Smerwick' when reading Spanish Armada in Ireland, and much of what I wrote was based on content you had added in various articles, so I appreciate your history in Wikipedia.--Rye1967 23:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
.
Thx for the resp, I learned lots from what you say on taking position of heretic etc. There is one sentence in the detail article on it being the first Protestant vs Catholic based rebellion, but you have given more detail. I guess my general position is that the detail article should have more than the summary, and the summary should have less than the detail. I think the info you just put in my talk would be very good for the detail article, and in that way the summary, as you wish it to be, would have less info than the detail, which is as I wish it to be. Hows about that?
Also, are you sure that that the Smerwick forces arrived in 1580, other Wikipedia pages, possibly the Thomas Stukley or James Fitzmaurice Fitzgerald gave specific dates in 1579 for the voyage. Anyhow that sort of conflicting info is exactly the background to my creation of the article and re-writing of the summaries, so it will be great to see it cleared up one way or the other. In some ways, it would make more sense for the involvment of William Winter (admiral) if everything happenened in 1580, (some external article I found via Google - and is linked at the bottom of 2DR - said something about him being tied up at Cork harbour during the arrival) except that the arrival would have to have been early in the year since some Spanish/Italian were at CarraigaFoyle for some time in advance of Easter 1580, working on fortifications. And there is also the batallion that marched to Naas to think about. I think one of the great benefits of Wikipedia is that historians will be able to find snippets of info in other articles, even from other countries, that can add to the story.
Landing at Smerwick vs Dingle is somewhat pedantic, but lets be accurate, the other articles said he went into Dingle harbour and then went round the corner as it were, and actually landed at Smerwick. Given, in my opinion, the silliness of using Smerwick as a base (esp. once their fleet was gone), it is important to make clear that his forces didn't march west from Dingle - which would be even more silly.
Happy editing - Later --Rye1967 11:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi J, I have been meaning to come back to the Desmond Rebellions articles, but went off on a tangent. I have seen your latest comments but it will be next week before I get a chance to read all the stuff and reply--00:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Auldearn

I know from past edits that you have an interest in the Battle of Auldearn. I've now completely rewritten this because the previous version simply repeats the highly inaccurate De Rebus version of the battle, scandalous in its treatment of Alasdair MacColla. I've also rewritten the Battle of Inverlochy to bring out the 'two wars' thesis, quite absent from the previous treatment. Best wishes. Rcpaterson 01:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a complex story, but I'll try to be brief!

From your edits to the Inverlochy page you're obviously aware of the general background, and the particular rivalry between Clan Campbell and Clan Donald. This conflict has roots in Irish as well as Scottish history. The main point to hold in mind is that there is little if any difference between Gaeldom in the Western Isles and Gaeldom in Ireland.

In the early fifteenth century Iain Mor, a younger son of Good John of Islay, the first Lord of the Isles, married Marjory Bissett, an Irish heiress with extensive lands in the Glens of Antrim. Iain, by his father's will, was given lands around Dunyveg Castle in Islay, subsequently united with his Irish inheritance. His branch of the family thus became known as the Macdonalds-or Macdonnells-of Dunyveg and the Glens, also known as Clan Iain Mor.

Clan Iain prospered for several generations in both Scotland and Ireland, but towards the end of the sixteenth century their history entered a particularly troublesome and complex phase. In Ulster, despite rivalry with the O'Neils, and the hostility of the English, under the guidance of Sorley Boy-Somhairlie Buidhe in Gaelic-they managed to negotiate the dangerous rapids of Irish politics, even changing sides in the Nine Years War just in time. Sorley's son, James, a particular favourite of James I, was created earl of Antrim in 1620, and was succeeded, in turn, by his son, Randal Macdonnell, who became 2nd earl in 1636.

In Scotland, where the family held lands in Kintyre and Jura as well as Islay, the story was quite different. From the 1580s the Dunyveg Macdonalds were caught up in a murderous feud with the Macleans of Duart, which spread considerable disorder throughout the whole of the Isles, to the anger and alarm of the king. In Basilikon Doron, his book of advice to Prince Henry, he describes the Islanders as 'alluterly barbures'. In dealing with the problem James turned to the Campbells, who had effectively been policemen in the southern Isles since the late Middle Ages. In return for his efforts Archibald Campbell, the seventh earl of Argyll, also known as Archibald the Grim, was given the Macdonald lands on Jura and Kintyre. In 1615 he took control of Dunyveg and the last of the Macdonald lands on Islay. From this point Clan Iain Mor in Scotland ceased to exist. The onward expansion of the Campbells also threatened other branches of Clan Donald: the Maciains of Ardnamurchan went under in 1625 and Clanranald looked to be next.

The earls of Antrim were powerless to stop these developments, but never lost sight of their Scottish inheritance. Randal Macdonnell made it openly known that he considered himself the rightful heir of all the lands of Clan Iain. The outbreak of the Bishops' Wars and subsequently the Civil Wars was his great opportunity-for the first time in centuries there was an open breach between the Campbells and the crown.

It was Antrim, acting as a bridge between King Charles and the Kilkenny authorities, who pressed for military intervention in the Western Highlands. Strategic considerations and personal ambition therefore drew up side by side: Kilkenny wanted the Scots-and the Campbells-out of Ulster; Antrim wanted the Campbells out of Islay and Kintyre. He raised men from his own estates, who were then equipped and supplied by the Confederates. The man chosen to lead the expidition was Alasdair MacColla, the son of Coll MacGillespic, who was the son of Sorley Boy's brother. Most of the men recruited-Macdonnells in the main-were just as passionate in their hatred of the Campbells as their Scottish cousins. In the summer of 1644 they landed in Scotland. You know the rest. Rcpaterson 00:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for that interesting information. I did not know of the involvement in the 1641 massacres, but I had come across references to their fearsome reputation. Even before they left Ireland there were reports about atrocities committed against the people of Galway and Roscommon. They were certainly tough soldiers, though, and man for man gave the Confedeates maximum results for minimum expense. Just what difference it made to the war in Ireland is, as you say, hard to assess; but it is true though that Munro had lost some of his best regiments prior to the engagement at Benburb.

Antrim did appeal-with limited success-for reinforcements to be sent to Alasdair in Scotland. While Kilkenny would have found the victories in Scotland satisfying, the troops in Ulster were not being withdrawn as fast as had perhaps been anticipated.

Overall victory in the Civil Wars? This is one of the great imponderables. I personally believe that the royalist defeat was 'inevitable' (a dangerous word for an historian to use!) after the formation of the New Model Army. There are, it should be emphasised, two sides to the Scottish equation, one less well explored than the other. Montrose's victories owed much to the courage and professionalism of his troops, yes; but they owed just as much to the incompetence and unrealistic political and strategic ambitions of his enemies. Army after army of half-trained levies were thrown against the rebels by a goverment determined to maintain as many of its experienced troops as possible in England and Ireland. You might be interested in a comment I left on the Highland Charge on the Alasdair MacColla Talk Page some time ago which touches on aspects of this issue. I would also say-again a purely personal assessment-that even if Alasdair had remained with Montrose both men would still have been overwhelmed by Leslie at Philiphaugh. Rcpaterson 03:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2 answers (sort of)

Hi, JD. Thanks for the query. On the pope's illegitimate son, I referred to it here - I'm pretty sure it comes from the 1922 DNB, and I'll see if I can check it later in the week, maybe in the new DNB as well. On the Naas massacre - I have a notion I queried that before: it doesn't sound right. Thanks.--Shtove 22:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Had a look at both DNB's. The new one makes no reference to the Pope's offspring. The 1922 DNB has this:
  • "At the papal court [of Gregory XIII in 1577] [Fitzmaurice] fell in with Stukley, and a plan was soon on foot for the invasion of Ireland, the crown this time being promised to the Pope's nephew." DNB (1921-22 - reprint 1973) vol.VII, p.127 ISBN 0198651015.
So, this is a reliable source, but it doesn't address your query over the reaction of English catholics. There is a reference somewhere in WP to the individual's name. I'm not sure how nephew turned in to illegitimate son (surely Greg didn't sleep with his sister!) - I suspect I came across a now forgotten piece of black protestant propaganda, and replaced the info unthinkingly.--Shtove 17:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I've just corrected the nephew info here, but have forgotten how to do footnotes and am hungry.--Shtove 17:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Civil War

I wasn't aware of antagonism. The correct name of the legal army at the time was the "National Army". It is POV to refer to them as the Free State army, worse still, the "Free-Staters". The term "Free State Army" is a very provo way of putting it since it is a way of denier their legitimacy. I didn't change the anti-treaty IRA to "irregulars" anywhere: that would be PoV too. --Red King 22:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Faughart

I thought you should know that your expansion request has now been removed from the Battle of Faughart. To be honest this is one of the more difficult battle reports I've written because the details are so sketchy. Anyway, I think it is better than it was. Have you had a look at Edward Bruce? The quality is very uneven. I'll try and write a more rounded account as soon as I have the time. Rcpaterson 02:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, I've not touched it; but I will. Did you see the point about his marriage "which may or may not have taken place before Edward's death". The corollary to this is that it could have taken place after his death-some historical necrophilia! I did see a reference to the point you noted on the talk page. Some sensible soul has obviously removed it, though the 'Aftermath' label has been left hanging around as an orphan. I will also have a go at the Bruce Wars in Ireland, again when I have the time. Regards Rcpaterson 22:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article of possible interest

Hi. I've nominated Mairéad Farrell for peer review and thought you might be interested in having a look at it and giving me your opinion as you've edited it several times in the past. Thanks in advance!GiollaUidir 01:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your message re Irish War of Independence

Hello--I just wanted to let you know that I received your message, and thank you for your kind words (I don't know any other way to reply--I'm still pretty new at this).

I will see if I have anything to contribute to the main article, but I'm afraid offline life will prevent me from doing much for the next little while.--Cliodule 02:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belfast WikiProject

As you have contributed to an article relating to Belfast, I hope you could take some time to read this page about our new project: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Belfast.

Thanks. --Mal 01:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Devin 79

I have no specific recollections of having engaged in any disputes with the gentleman, and so, have no intention of becoming involved in this matter. Thank you. ---Charles 03:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Now hear this

[5]

Hope this solves the problem. Sorry for going around your RfC but RfC's generally do nothing but gather evidence for a weeks/months long arbcom case, and I just couldn't stand one more edit on Special Activities Division. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tracatus quote on your user page

You might try using Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen instead [6]; I wouldn't be the biggest fan of him myself, but it is the main line on your user page! -- PD 13:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Moyry Pass

Hi, JD. Any idea what's going on with Battle of Moyry Pass? I can't remember if there was an article to begin with, but the article title is there.--Shtove 19:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't pin a medal on my chest for my small Moyry Pass contribution - so, in the absence of the article and its history, I was confused. The only extended account of Yellow Ford and Kinsale I have is Falls (as usual). The reason I've been able to post so much on other topics is that the notes were already on disk - I'm about 2/3 through, but have nothing on these topics ready to go. And Flight of the Earls could do with a scrubbing up.--Shtove 16:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Ireland intro edit

Glad you approve.  ;) Dppowell 22:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unhelpful category & Weggie

Hi JD, I see you've been in contact with User talk:Weggie and generally found his contributions worthwhile.

Over the past few days, he's populated the Category:People convicted on terrorism charges with Irish republicans. I'm not sure whether this is the most helpful category, as some of the people listed have only ever been charged with "membership of an illegal organisation" and/or "refusing to answer questions/account for their movements" etc. Moreover, most were found guilty by non-jury, Diplock courts, had their confessions extracted by extra judicial means, or were found guilty on the word of a senior police officer. Furthermore, "terrorism" is a highly subjective label, applied by many at will against enemies they wish to denigrate. In this particular case, the fact that User talk:Weggie has failed to include any loyalists, for example, in the category, suggests to me that his motivation is entirely POV. (I pointed this out to him on his talk page but he deleted my remarks on the grounds that they were "sectarian").

I'd appreciate your views on the matter before deciding on whether to revert his categorisations.--Damac 12:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Army

I don't know if you want me to reply here or on my page, so I'll just post on both. Well thanks. Nice work on the history section BTW. Eh, I'm not sure if we need to split the article into a separate History or UN article, but I suppose it is very large now. I think I'll leave that decision up to you, if you think there is enough material to make separate articles then I suppose go for it. I think what I'd really like for the article would be a much more thorough analysis of the Irish Army's capabilities and doctrines. I wrote a small part about the army's weapons and equipment but because information is somewhat hard to find and because I'm not an expert on this, it's difficult to write satisfactorily. It would be good if we had someone who knows about the Army's Philosophy and Doctrine of War/Defence in detail. --Hibernian 22:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bandit Country

Can you clarify what edition of Hardens' Bandit Country you are using in the South Armagh provo page - I'm using ISBN 0340717378 revised updated - as I can't find support for you edits from my edition? CheersWeggie 11:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that - the editions would appear to be quite different with A Pause in the Solution being page 427. It was the latest edits I wanted to look up out of interest so that would resolve the issue for me. CheersWeggie 12:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Was just looking for something interesting to read about Ireland (It become an ongoing project, can you believe?), and saw one of your edits so I thought to say hello. Hope you are well, Dorit 22:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

Thank you for the kind comments on my article on the early history of Dublin. I'm now at work on part 2! Keep up the good work yourself, JDorney -- Eroica 10:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Williamite war

Hi, I've done an infobox and theatre's campaign box. Would you mind if I add them to the article next week? Raymond Palmer 15:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks JD. Oh, you are right about about the strengths, they do vary from source to source.Raymond Palmer 16:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish History

You seem like you have a lot a knowledge with respect Irish history so maybe you would like to comment on the historic basis of this term here Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DownDaRoad (talk • contribs) 20:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC).


[edit] Ireland in the Roman Empire

Hey, dude. You might take a look at Talk:Borders of the Roman Empire‎ - the argument isn't heated, but the point is significant.--Shtove 18:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paddy daly - Mick Love

Hello, you added an interesting article on Paddy daly in October. Around the same time I added an article on Mick Love, a Squad member and associate of Daly's but it was deleted. All of the background information is verifiable as I have copies of his Army & IRA service records and references to published material.

Are you interested in looking it over and maybe putting it in ? Feel free to email me at 10cloisters@eircom.net and I will send you the text of the entry I made. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pop10765 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Eastern Association

Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.

Thanks! --Vox Causa 01:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/d/o/User_talk%7EJdorney_1419.html"