Talk:Boyle Roche

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Boyle Roche has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Baronetcies.

An entry from Boyle Roche appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 20 June 2006.

Boyle Roche has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents 1 Is "anonymous author called Junius" a malapropism? 2 Speculation: Choice of Valentine's Day for apology to Lord Kenmare 3 Photograph? 4 Irish Times research 5 DNB refs 6 Some issues 7 GA review 8 Exploits in America

[edit] Is "anonymous author called Junius" a malapropism?

Speaking of "The Letters of Junius", Roche referred to "an anonymous author called Junius." I agree that "The Letters of Junius" had an anonymous author. But the author was not called Junius. To speak of an anonymous author who is called anything is nonsense. This is why the quote is amusing (but only to some, apparently). I would like to restore the quote, but I don't want to get into a revision war. Opinions, please? ubiquity 23:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)ubiquity

I'm not getting it. The author was anonymous. The author signed himself Junius, and was referred to by everyone as Junius, not as "the anonymous gentleman who signed himself Junius" - so he was "called" that in all practical senses. It looks vaguely amusing, I'll grant you, but it also (to me) looks like we don't know that Junius was a pseudonym... Shimgray | talk | 23:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

To me, psuedonymous and anonymous are not the same thing, and I find humor in Roche's confusion. But I also see your point, and it does begin to seem like a minor quibble, and the other quotes are funnier anyway. ubiquity 04:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)ubiquity

The issue is now moot, with the movement of the quotations to Wikiquotes. As it happens, I removed the quote there, because I don't think it stands on its own as a quotation.ubiquity 21:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)ubiquity

[edit] Speculation: Choice of Valentine's Day for apology to Lord Kenmare

Was this coincidence, or a subtle joke on Roche's part? The name "Valentine" was the traditional name for the first-born son in Lord Kenmare's family. Lord Kenmare himself was one of the few Viscounts Kenmare who were not named Valentine, as the name had been given to his older brother (who died before he had a chance to inherit the title).ubiquity 21:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)ubiquity

[edit] Photograph?

I wonder if it is possible to get a portrait of Boyle Roche. All I can find is this. Maybe there is something at the Kerry Museum.Grouse 09:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that is a picture of Sheridan, not Roche.ubiquity 15:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Times research

I did a full text search of the Irish Times using Lexis-Nexis for [Boyle Roche] and found 13 articles. One was the cited biography. Another was a review of Jonah Barrington's memoirs, ISBN 190165804X. Another a review of Dublin's Yesterdays which might mention him as well. Grouse 09:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A number of the other sources cite Barrington. I will have to see if I can find it (as well as the other book). Falkiner refers to Barrington while disparaging him: "Sir Jonah Barrington, atoning in this as in other cases for the inaccuracy of his facts by the shrewdness of his observation, notes that Sir Boyle seldom launched a blunder from which some fine maxim might not be extracted."

[edit] DNB refs

These are messed up now, but don't seem to like being cited in the infobox. Don't have time to fix right now. Also, they aren't *all* from the Johnston-Liik book, are they? Grouse 09:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. When you have various footnotes all using <ref name="..."></ref>, you need to make sure the first one is the one with citation details, and all subsequent ones are just references back to that - if the references back are before the citation details, it gets confused. Shimgray | talk | 11:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Grouse 14:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I replaced one reference with another and wasn't careful enough. Thanks Shimgray.

[edit] Some issues

I'm working on reviewing this as a Good Article, and while I'm not done, I've run across some issues.

1. According to this page, a Lieutenant Boyle Roche of the 27th Regiment of Foot was captured at the Battle on Snowshoes, while serving with Rogers' Rangers in 1758. Is this the same person?
   1. I would guess not. I have more than one reference that states that my Boyle Roche was in the 28th regiment, not the 27th, and the fact that he was later known to have served at El Moro suggests that the army never thought him missing, presumed dead. The Roches were a large family, there may have been more than one named Boyle.ubiquity 12:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
      1. An officer wouldn't necessarily serve in one regiment throughout his whole career: see for instance James Grant (general) who purchased a captaincy in the Royal Regiment of Foot but was, subsequently a major of the 77th Regiment. Reading down further in the article, both Pringle and Roche, after a week's wandering through the winter forest, reached Ticonderoga, where they surrendered themselves to the French and thus avoid a gruesome fate at the hands of the Indians. See also this article on the Battle on Snowshoes, which quotes from Pringle's letter (but doesn't give Roche's first name) and the index to the Macomb letters. Those officers of the 27th attached to the Rangers appear to have volunteered, probably out of a desire to learn woodcraft and a spirit of adventure. I confess I'm at a loss to establish a further connection, but the whole episode seems consistent with Roche's character. Choess 17:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
   2. I admit that I have searched in vain for more details on Roche's milirary career. I'm interested, because I live in upstate NY, and I have often wondered whether Roche one day tramped through my home town (we have a fort here, so he might have). However, it certainly seems evident that Roche not only survived but returned to Ireland a hero.ubiquity 12:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
2. In the section on recruiting, clarification seems in order regarding Lord Kenmare's office — why was he issuing recruiting bounties? Did he hold military rank?
   1. Lord Kenmare was a local squire and owner of vast landholdings (175 square miles, altogether). I believe it was customary for people in such a position to raise local regiments. As far as I can tell, Kenmare held no military rank.ubiquity 12:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
3. The citation from Wills on his malapropisms, namely, that they were the product of imperfect memorization, seems inconsistent with his delivery of Serjeant Stanley's speech. Is it really the case that they arose from errors of memorization, or were they the product of extemporaneous speech diverging from recitations?
   1. Well, Wills says what Wills says, and I'm not in a position to discuss it with him. But I think that the two points of view are not totally inconsistent. First, it is possible to memorize something very well and still make small errors. Second, it is possible to memorize something very well and still feel like embroidering it. But the people who wrote his speeches would certainly have thought that to be an error. I am of the opinion that Roche was very smart indeed, and that NONE of his bulls were errors, but rather subtle humor (and perhaps a desire to be underestimated by his enemies). I think he was capable of repeating a speech verbatim but he probably did not often choose to. However, this is pure speculation on my part, I have no evidence to support it other than the general impression I have gotten from my readings, and Wikipedia standards forbid me from "original" observations.ubiquity 12:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
      1. Yes, looking again, "love of language and ornament" would seem to cover this. Choess 17:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
4. In the quotation "Every quart bottle should contain a quart," should not the first "quart" stand as "pint"?
   1. I have seen the quotation both ways. I can add a footnote to that effect if you like. Falkiner, who is both the most distinguished and earliest (that is, closest to the subject) of my sources says "quart," and I believe him. That is, I suppose Boyle was upset about alleged quart bottles that came up short. Yes, it's funnier if the first quart is pint, which is probably why Mays has it that way, but Mays is obviously of the opinion that Roche was a fool.ubiquity 12:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
      1. It might be well to add a sentence to that effect (that "pint" appears to be a later emendation on what otherwise is a sensible measure), but I leave that to your discretion. Choess 17:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Resolution of these problems would be welcome. Choess 03:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I added a couple of lines to deal with (1) and a footnote to deal with (4). If you think I really need to explain why Kenmare was recruiting (2) I will, but I don't think it's very interesting. I did add a long quote about Roche's recruiting methods. See what you think (I fear it's too long, but I don't know where to cut it, it provides such a great picture of Roche's love of spectacle). I assume your reply to (3) means we can leave it alone.ubiquity 20:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

Point 1: the prose is compelling, and indeed well styled. The structure is logical, and largely chronological, separating out his married life (of which there is relatively little to be said), and his quotation on birds, which has become a figure of speech. It appears to follow the manual of style in relevant particulars. No jargon is employed.

Point 2: the article is extensively referenced, and the sources appear to be reliable. Original research is not evident.

Point 3: the article covers all aspects of Roche's life. The sections on militaria and family life are short, but data on these is probably scant in general. It is well-balanced, considering that the subject's present-day reputation is largely based on a propensity for malapropisms.

Point 4: the article is NPOV. The principle POV issue, whether or not Roche's malapropisms were entirely unintentional id discussed evenhandedly.

Point 5: while extensively upgraded recently to improve its quality, the article does not appear to have been subject to edit wars, and is not expected to change greatly now that improvements are complete.

Point 6: the article does not contain an image of the subject. As the online ODNB and online database of the National Portrait Gallery contain no images of the subject, this is deemed acceptable.

I therefore certify "Boyle Roche" as a Good Article. Choess 01:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exploits in America

While trolling Google Books to discover his relationship or (as it appears) lack thereof with "Tiger" Roche, I found "The House of Cromwell and the Story of Dunkirk: with anecdotes and letters", James Waylen, 1880. His wife Mary was a descendant of Oliver Cromwell, and so he comes within the purview of the book. It quite definitely identifies the Lt. Boyle Roche, captured with Pringle, as being the baronet. Choess 06:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)