→Your comments: reply |
No edit summary |
||
Line 306: | Line 306: | ||
==Tag== |
==Tag== |
||
I note the NPOV tag I added to the massacre article was removed by 'BigDunc' so I replaced it with a 3rd party tag as per the edit history. this has also been removed by Domer. Could you confirm that you regard the article as biased and that the NPOV tag should be readded. I'm finding Domer's editing now very disruptive and am thinking of taking the matter to the Troubles arbcom. [[User:Kernel Saunters|Kernel Saunters]] ([[User talk:Kernel Saunters|talk]]) 22:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC) |
I note the NPOV tag I added to the massacre article was removed by 'BigDunc' so I replaced it with a 3rd party tag as per the edit history. this has also been removed by Domer. Could you confirm that you regard the article as biased and that the NPOV tag should be readded. I'm finding Domer's editing now very disruptive and am thinking of taking the matter to the Troubles arbcom. [[User:Kernel Saunters|Kernel Saunters]] ([[User talk:Kernel Saunters|talk]]) 22:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Dunmanway Massacre == |
|||
{{Consensus|The [[Dunmanway Massacre]] article is currently subject to '''[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case]]''', as laid out during a previous [[WP:AE]] case that closed October 05, 2008. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.}} |
|||
This article is subject to a 1RR, you have now reverted the same edit twice, both [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dunmanway_Massacre&diff=267709207&oldid=267707063 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dunmanway_Massacre&diff=next&oldid=267709905 here]. Please revert yourself, and don't breech the AE sanctions, thanks --<font face="Celtic">[[User:Domer48|<span style="color:#009900"><strong>Domer48</strong></span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:Domer48|<span style="color:#006600">'fenian'</span>]]''</sub></font> 22:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Sorry I won't. The edit is correct. [[User:Jdorney|Jdorney]] ([[User talk:Jdorney#top|talk]]) 00:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Right now the issue is not weather it is correct or not, the issue is breeching AE imposed sanctions. You have, despite being respectfully advised decided to ignore those sanctions. I seriously think you should reconsider this, its not a road you want to go down. Be reasonable about this, revert yourself, and use the talk page. --<font face="Celtic">[[User:Domer48|<span style="color:#009900"><strong>Domer48</strong></span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:Domer48|<span style="color:#006600">'fenian'</span>]]''</sub></font> 01:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Sorry I won't. Do you feel like Domer. Or maybe think about the article and not quoting rules at people for a change. Your call.[[User:Jdorney|Jdorney]] ([[User talk:Jdorney#top|talk]]) 11:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Just to be clear, is it your intension to disregard AE Sanctions? --<font face="Celtic">[[User:Domer48|<span style="color:#009900"><strong>Domer48</strong></span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:Domer48|<span style="color:#006600">'fenian'</span>]]''</sub></font> 12:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Your comments == |
|||
Jdorney could you please stop with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kernel_Saunters#Rules these] type of comments, claiming to be harrased by another editor is very unhelpful. Also the reason that 3O was unhelpful was not down to Domer but had a lot to do with the behaviour of the editor who offered the 3O you have seen the thread on the 3O talk page and my reading of it is that Calabraxthis made an error by seeming to take a side after he had given an opinion considering that he was asked by yourself to comment. Please take this in the good faith that it is offered. <strong>[[User:BigDunc|<span style="font-family:Ariel Black;color:Green">BigDunc</span>]]</strong>[[User_talk:BigDunc|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:Orange">Talk</span></sup>]] 13:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I see zero good faith here [[User:Jdorney|Jdorney]] ([[User talk:Jdorney#top|talk]]) 19:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I asked you in good faith to stop with the unsubstantiated comments about another editor and you see that as some kind of attack on you judging from your reply, so it now appears to me that you are not willing to show other editors any good faith and as such you have tarnished my view on your edits. <strong>[[User:BigDunc|<span style="font-family:Ariel Black;color:Green">BigDunc</span>]]</strong>[[User_talk:BigDunc|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:Orange">Talk</span></sup>]] 00:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:02, 2 February 2009
I hope you are not going to leave because of Sarah. I can well understand your frustration, but from what I have seen you are a knowledgeable editor with an ability to deal evenhandedly with contentious material. I've seen too many good editors driven off Wikipedia, and it's something that really bothers me.
I know very little about Sarah's history on Wiki and I rarely look at pages relating to Ireland, but from what I've seen she does not appear to be very interested in creating encyclopedic content. Have you considered starting an RFC against her? Maybe you have more support than you think. Gatoclass (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, I see she has already been put on probation, so an RFC would obviously be superfluous. I really think you are giving up rather too easily Jd, and I hope you will reconsider your position and return to editing soon. Gatoclass (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Gatoclass, thanks for for the message but I really don't have the energy right now to be constantly fighting with people who are not on the level. Debates I can handle but pov wars are a complete waste of time and energy. I'm taking a break for now. This isn't the first time I've come across people like this but I would rather let other people deal with it this time.
Jdorney (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I can certainly understand that, I am an occasional editor on the Israel-Palestine pages and so I know all about edit wars, and am fully aware of how exasperating they can be.
- We all need a Wikibreak from time to time, I hope you enjoy yours and come back fresh and re-energized when you are ready. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Flags
Interesting chat. But as you are actively editing (edit warring?) on a number of "battle templates" I think we need to discuss the issue. Normal practice on these boxes right across Wiki does not require a combatant to be an "official" (whatever that meant in the 1600s) state in order to be represented by a flag or emblem. Sarah777 (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, if Hugh O'neill had a banner then stick it up there. But he never claimed to be representing 'Ireland', nor was he a representative of any state called Ireland. So it's simply incorrect to label it like that. By way of comparison, the battles of the 1798 rebellion have the United Irishmen down as combatants and rightly so, although they were a specifically seperatist nationalist organisation, unlike Hugh O'Neill and his allies.
Incidentally, whether a combatant was official (state) or not had great importance in 17th century thinking. An enemy soldier was entitled to all kinds of rights and obligations. A rebel was, in contemporary thought, a criminal against legitimate authority and therefore God (because Kings were belived to have been selected by God) and was entitled to no rights of surrender, treatment etc etc. Jdorney (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- So not much has changed then? OK - point accepted. But an important question - was this '17th century thinking' accepted by the Gaelic culture at the time? Sarah777 (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Tough question. In the Annals of the Four Masters you'll find references to the Geraldines being exterminated by God in the Desmond Rebellions in punishment for having rebelled against their lawful sovereign. ; “It was no wonder that the vengeance of God should exterminate the Geraldines for their opposition to their Sovereign, whose predecessors had granted to their ancestors as patrimonial lands that tract of country extending from Dun-caoin in Kerry to the Meeting of the Three Waters, and from the Great Island of Ard-Nemidh in Hy-Liathain to Limerick”.
On the other hand, you will also find in the Annals a lament for outcome of the battle of Kinsale, which has the 'Gaels' of Ireland fighting against the 'English'. The Annals describe them fighting for their 'patrimony' (In Irish I think duiche which means birthright) - i.e. their personal lands and their religion.
“They [the Irish] met no mighty man whom they did not subdue, and no force over which they did not prevail, so long as the Lord and fortune favoured, that is, so long as they did the will of their Lord God, and kept his commandments and his will...had God permitted them to fight stoutly with one mind and one accord, in defence of their religion and their patrimony, in the strait of difficulty in which they had the enemy on this occasion… Manifest was the displeasure of God, and misfortune to the Irish [Gaels] of fine Fodhla [Ireland], on this occasion; for, previous to this day, a small number of them had more frequently routed many hundreds of the English, than they had fled from them, in the field of battle, in the gap of danger, up to this day. Immense and countless was the loss in that place, although the number slain was trifling; for the prowess and valour, prosperity and affluence, nobleness and chivalry, dignity and renown, hospitality and generosity, bravery and protection, devotion and pure religion, of the Island, were lost in this engagement”.
So it's very complicated. Sometimes Gaelic writers accepted the authority of the English monarch and sometimes they didn't.
Also, just as many Gaelic lords fought against O'Neill as fought for him. Not in all likeliehood becuase they had allegiance to one side or the other, but because they judged it to be in their interest. Many of them also changed sides not once but several times depending on who was winning. Check out Florence MacCarthy or Niall Garbh O'Donnell for example.
Jdorney (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Charles Coote
Hello, someone said that you were involved with the early modern Irish stuff.
I think I need to point out something concerning 'the' Charles Cootes (Father and son): there is no article on either of these figures.
I admit that they are not attractive figures to modern eyes (you could fairly compare them to Vlad the impaler) however they played a major role in the conflict in Ireland in the 1640's; they are as important to it as Owen Roe O'neil or Inchiquin and they really need an article if you want to understand the conflict.
I would do one myself but I don't know enough about them currently.
Inchiquin (talk) 10:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Coote
Hello Jdorney.
Regarding Coote, the following is from the Four Courts Press website (about a soon to be published book):
'Cola’s Furie (1646) by Henry Burkhead was published in Kilkenny during the Catholic Confederacy. A fascinating composite of history play and revenge tragedy, the drama allegorizes the events and leading figures of the Irish wars prior to the Ormond cessation of 1643. At the heart of the struggle between the noble Lirendians (the Confederate Irish) and the cruel Angoleans (the puritan New English) is the title character Sir Carola Cola, a representation of Sir Charles Coote Senior, a New English commander infamous for his brutality. Burkhead depicts Cola as a demonic figure whose vengeful ‘furie’ becomes symbolic of the hidden dynamics of a corrupt authority.'
As you said, it seems from this he was a notorious figure; oddly today Oliver Cromwell has taken his place as in Ireland as the archtype bad guy.
Apart from this, there are some famous words attributed to Coote Senior- the story goes that one of his comrades challenged him on his habit of killing children along with the able-bodied during his incursion into rebel territory. He justified his actions by stating 'Nits become lice.' These words seem to have had some resonance in Britain: During the 18th & 19th centuries the same words are said to have been used to justify the ethnic cleansing of Natives in Australia and America. (This is from 'Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur' by Kiernan.)
I probably don't know enough about Coote to write an article but I am hoping to do an article on the battle of Arklow (Inchiquin's last gamble) and on the 1641 Portadown massacre in the near future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inchiquin (talk • contribs) 01:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Info on Cootes
Hello, this website has a bit of info on the two Cootes, it might be of some use
http://www.booksulster.com/library/biography/biographyC.php
Also how do I add my article on the battle of Arklow (1649) to the Confederate wars box?.
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inchiquin (talk • contribs) 12:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello again Jdorney.
I just found that I have a book with a short article on the younger charles Coote...If you want me do do an article on Coote the younger give me a shout. Unless you think it is better to put the two Cootes in the one article?.
Looking at the stuff on Confederate Ireland, it seems a lot more needs to be done...the articles on Castlehaven and Clanricarde are pretty basic, although I have added a bit to them. Also there are four or five fairly important sieges/battles to be added. Might try to make Castlehaven a better article; he was a fairly important figure in the 1640's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inchiquin (talk • contribs) 06:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
English Royalists in the Siege of Limerick (1650-1651) and elsewhere in Ireland
Hi Jdorney,
I absolutely love and adore the work you are doing on Wikipedia when it comes to 17th century Irish history. Your contributions are consistently interesting, informative and enlightening. I have learned so much about Ireland's wars in the 17th century from your words alone. Please keep up the wonderful and important job you are doing educating people about this fascinating topic.
I do, however, have two questions to ask you. Since you are an expert and authority on the subject of my questions, I have no doubt you will be able to answer them. My inquiries are as follows:
1.) Was Colonel Fennell the only English Royalist fighting with Irish Confederate Catholics during the length of the Siege of Limerick (1650-1651)?
2.) If there was indeed a contingent of English Royalists fighting with Irish Confederate Catholics at the Siege of Limerick (1650-1651), did they also fight alongside Irish Confederate Catholics at the Battle of Knocknaclashy and at the Siege of Galway (1651-1652)?
Thank you very much for your time. I am looking forward to hearing your responses to my questions.
64.231.64.91 (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for answering my questions in such a thorough and detailed manner. I could not have asked for a better response. I appreciate you taking the time and making the effort to get back to me. 64.231.64.91 (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Article on Coote
Jdorney just so you know I have just done an article on Charles Coote the younger. It is pretty basic but OK for a start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inchiquin (talk • contribs) 06:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Jdorney. I found I was able to put together a basic picture of the younger Coote using the internet and a few books I had.
One other thing I think I should ask you- I recently rewrote the battle of New Ross (1643) article as it was pretty basic. My detail of the battle was from C P Meehan who said that Ormonde and Lord Lisle (Leicester) led the Royalist force. I have put a link to Philip Sidney, 3rd Earl of Leicester for Lisle however this article says he never set foot in Ireland. It may be a mistake on the part of the writer of this article, but I am not sure. Do you have any idea who the 'Lord Lisle' mentioned by Meehan is?. Inchiquin (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Heads Up
You are being accused of being in a tag team with me here conspiring to get another editor blocked for breaching 3RR. My initial comment to one of the admins on this matter can be found here. Could you care to comment. BigDuncTalk 10:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Irish Confederate Wars
Hello Jdorney,
Do you think the section on 'Shifting Allegiances' in the above should be deleted?.
I wrote the section because it seems to me that that there is a considerable ammount of confusion regarding Ireland in the 1640's (i.e the Scottish in Ulster, the Ulster Irish alliance with the Parliamentarians etc.) However if you feel it is too wordy or something feel free to delete it, it is not a thing I feel strongly about.
While I am here I am trying to find out if I can add pictures from books to an article...I am informed that it is probably a bit dodgy, but I don't know if the age of the book makes a difference (i.e if I had a 100 year old, book would copyright have expired on any pictures in it?.) Do you know much about this?.
thanks for your attention. Inchiquin (talk) 11:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hello again.
What you said regarding 'shifting allegiances' sounds fair, I don't mind if you go ahead with your suggestion.
By the way, I want to write some more articles; do you know of any 16th/17th Century Ireland related topics that need articles?. If I can get the info on it and the topic is not too big I will do it.
Inchiquin (talk) 12:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response
I am planning on doing an article on the sack of Cashel soon (and maybe after that one on Castlehaven's victory in 1643 and Phelim O'Neill's defence of Charlemont in 1650). Also, there is an epic battle in the year 1597 (roughly translating to 'ford of heroes') in which an English force fought for their survival against a vast Gaelic army. I have plenty of info on that last one.
However I would like to try something non-military for my next article (just for a change); do you know of something that needs to be done of this nature?. Inchiquin (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- OK Jdorney, after looking through my books and notes I think I have enough info to write up a short article on Plunkett. I'll try to do it by the end of September. Inchiquin (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- The article on Nicholas Plunkett is now up; I'll be adding more to it soon.
- For some reason I also did an article on the battle of Saintfield but it is very rudimentary as I am not so good on 1798.
- Inchiquin (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
UDR
Hi, while I certainly appreciate every possible assistance to keep the UDR article free of POV I need to take issue about your removal of a cited fact about the loyalty of soldiers of the regiment. The report cited is from 1972 (published 1973), the fact below is from 1974. Both are correct and contain inline citations. If you feel the grammar has a pov synthesis I would certainly agree to a rewording. You cannot remove facts just to suit a different set of facts however. I'm quite happy to engage in dialogue on the UDR talk page or here, or on my own talk page. The Thunderer (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I note your appraisal of the facts but would like to point out that the source itself cites the 1973 report and goes on to list the number of people who did not turn in for duties during the call-out for the UWC strike. It also lists a number of attempts by Protestant paramilitaries to "subvert" members of the regiment during those few days. In doing so it clearly shows that the fears of the 1973 report were unfounded. If you wanted to elaborate on it you could list the numbers who did fail to turn out for duty amd what action, if any, was taken against them. What you can't do is change the fact that the regiment turned out for duty en-masse in the face of Protestant action when they were requested not to do so by Protestant political leaders and paramilitary groups. In other words they showed Loyalty to the Crown and not Ulster. So that particular fear noted in the 1973 report while, relevant, was proven as unfounded. The Thunderer (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- It hasn't been an issue before now but, aside from any official sources, perhaps Chris Ryder's book has a quote. I'll check later. I would suggest Hansard for a likely official source? If you wanted to you could qualify the statement by editing in that is IS the regimental history which claims so then I'd certainly agree to that. I agree with you that it shouldn't be POV but often it's the way it's written, not the facts themselves, which are the problem. An inadvertent synthesis maybe? The Thunderer (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have a problem with the word "assuaged". Why don't you go back in and edit it that way?The Thunderer (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've done it for you.The Thunderer (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have a problem with the word "assuaged". Why don't you go back in and edit it that way?The Thunderer (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- It hasn't been an issue before now but, aside from any official sources, perhaps Chris Ryder's book has a quote. I'll check later. I would suggest Hansard for a likely official source? If you wanted to you could qualify the statement by editing in that is IS the regimental history which claims so then I'd certainly agree to that. I agree with you that it shouldn't be POV but often it's the way it's written, not the facts themselves, which are the problem. An inadvertent synthesis maybe? The Thunderer (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I note your appraisal of the facts but would like to point out that the source itself cites the 1973 report and goes on to list the number of people who did not turn in for duties during the call-out for the UWC strike. It also lists a number of attempts by Protestant paramilitaries to "subvert" members of the regiment during those few days. In doing so it clearly shows that the fears of the 1973 report were unfounded. If you wanted to elaborate on it you could list the numbers who did fail to turn out for duty amd what action, if any, was taken against them. What you can't do is change the fact that the regiment turned out for duty en-masse in the face of Protestant action when they were requested not to do so by Protestant political leaders and paramilitary groups. In other words they showed Loyalty to the Crown and not Ulster. So that particular fear noted in the 1973 report while, relevant, was proven as unfounded. The Thunderer (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)Why did you delete it again - I made the change you suggested and invited you to reword tp remove the synthesis? The Thunderer (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- My sincerest apologies. I've put it back. Very sorry. The Thunderer (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
USC
Thanks for the intervention. Good call. The Thunderer (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Irish Confederate Wars edits
Hello Jdorney, when you have time can you please have a look at the recent major edits of the above?.
I don't agree with a few of the edits but I am not sure if the whole thing needs to be reverted. I'll leave it to you. Inchiquin (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello again, I will add a note on the talk page.
There are some errors in the recent changes made by Red Hurley: For example, changing 'Protestant' to 'Parliamentarian'. This does not take the Scottish army in Ulster into account. A few other things too. Inchiquin (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind, I made the changes myself as best I could. Inchiquin (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Looked over it, It looks good Jdorney. BTW I should have the Plunkett article ready soon. Inchiquin (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- I just finished an article on the Siege of Charlemont. I also did two starter articles earlier-
- the Portadown Massacre and the Battle of Saintfield; I have added more details to both just now.
- I find it a damn pain getting hold of books on 1640's Ireland where I am (lots of stuff of the English Civil War, even
- though the conflict in Ireland was longer and more destructive.) The same is true of the internet- there are good sites on
- the British Civil Wars, Scotswars etc but little on Ireland apart from Wiki. At the moment I am putting together
- relevant information on a blogpage so maybe in future so maybe in the future I can do a proper website on 1640's Ireland. Inchiquin (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jdorney: If you can get the Duncannon one done and I complete the Cashel one there will be nearly 30 articles on the battles of the 1640's, which is excellent. I feel pretty strongly about this period, for this conflict (if I am not mistaken) was the largest to be fought in Ireland and is deserving of more attention than it generally gets.
Part of the problem I have with these 'battle' articles is I often only have one source on the battle, and I don't like to write up articles only using one source. This is why some of the battles I choose to write about are somewhat random (though I admit I like reading up about obscure battles also).
I live in Sydney, making it hard get hold of Irish history books... I have to order them from Ireland mostly. However I do often find good stuff on Irish history of this period in good quality British military history books (i.e the book by Ian Gentles on the New Model Army which has some stuff on Ireland). As I said before, unlike British history it is hard to find anything good about Irish history in Australian bookshops, which is not really justified when you consider that in the first Australian Census in 1828 there were almost as many people of Irish background as there were English here in NSW.
While I am here, have you considered a Wikipedia article on the Irish Confed Civil War in 1648-49?. Would be worth an article, though naturally it is a rather complicated event. Inchiquin (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Mind-bendingly complicated and difficult to explain. But yes, I suppose it would be a good addition. I agree about the 1640s, it has been ignored for amny years and yet in many ways it was teh most important event in Irish history. But I think that this is changing a bit. There was a bit of furore here in Ireland recently overa number of books published about the war, or more specifically, the Cromwellian phase of it.
Have you considered ordering the books online? It might be the only way to get them.
Jdorney (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Border War
Hi, it's not that I don't know what was happening island wide at that time. What's actually happened is that I obtained a book on the history of the RUC which contained some detail on the USC. I got dragged into making substantial edits to corroborate the Protestant/Catholic issues but I have little information on the actual operations carried out by the B Specials. There are several histories I need to get to enable me to include that information correctly. It stands to reason then that, as much as I may have improved the article, I have left twice as much relevant information out or have been forced to generalise with what sources I could lay my hands on. My main editing is still being done on Ulster Defence Regiment and when I'm finished there I'll be doing a lot more on the Royal Ulster Constabulary. B Specials may come after that if you leave me anything to do?
I do appreciate your interest and the fact that you've informed me. I left some notes for possible concensus on the talk page at USC, you may be interested in them? The Thunderer (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Chronology
Hello again Jdorney.
The chronology is a good idea for an article...most people find the Eleven year war period of Irish history somewhat baffling and this should make it a bit easier to grasp. It also helps bring to light some important points. For example, Castlehaven was appointed leader of the 1644 Ulster expedition; it is often assumed that the English + Aristocratic background of James Tuchet was the chief reason he was chosen over O'Neill and Preston. However, a glance a the timeline reminds that both Preston and O'Neil suffered defeats in the previous year (1643), whereas Castlehaven won a victory over Inchiquins forces in the same year, so it is perhaps understandable why the Confederate leadership may have felt he might be better choice than the old veterans.
The article on Duncannon was also very interesting by the way.
I have in fact written up the article on the Sack of Cashel, however there are a few minor things in the article I want to modify. I have been a bit busy lately, but I am expecting to have the article up by the end of this weekend. Inchiquin (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Jdorney. sorry about the delay in my response.
- I have been thinking a bit about Ireland in the 1640s recently. There are a few changes which I think may be warranted.
- 1. The wars between 1641-53 are described as 'the Irish Confederate Wars' but I am not sure if the name is eally accurate
- for the entire period. Arguably you could claim that the Cromwellian invasion was part of the Confed wars, as most of the
- defenders were Irish Confeds, but it seems odd to include the irish 1641-42 uprising as part of the Confed wars, as the
- Confederation of Kilkenny was not founded until October 1642, almost a full year after the start of the uprising. I feel
- that the conflict should be labelled 'the Eleven Years War' and then sub-divided into the two or (ideally)three smaller
- wars: The uprising, the Confederate Wars of 1642-49, and perhaps also the subsequent invasion. (The possible problem here is
- there may be too few articles on each individual conflict to warrant this at this time, but note that the English Civil
- Wars are divided up into seperate wars, i.e the First English Civil war, the Second Civil War etc.)
- 2. I am not sure in what article this should go, but one unusual feature of the Confederation of Kilkenny was that they
- appointed professional veterans to lead all 4 of the Irish armies. By contrast, at the start of the English Civil war, both ]
- Royalists and Parliamenarians tended to favour aristocratic amateurs. (oddly, as the 1640s progressed the Irish armies were
- increasingly were led by aristocrats, whereas in England the professional soldiers increasingly came to the fore,
- particularly in the Parliamentarian army.)
- 3. While I don't like to sound overly critical, I am not sure if the Portadown massacre should be listed in the battle
- infobox. In some cases I think it may be appropriate to include massacres in such lists, but here the Portadown massacre
- stands out from the others... I think the problem is, bad as it was, it was not on the scale of the other engagements listed
- in the Confed wars info box. All the other conflicts involved thousands of soldiers all up, but the Portadown atrocity
- involved only a few hundred perpetrators/victims all together. (maybe if the events of the 41-42 were subdivided into
- another infobox as I suggested above it would be justified to include smaller events like Portadown)
- Overall, the 1640s Ireland stuff is starting to look a lot better, its good to have a chat about this topic every now and
- then as it seems have a fairly productive result. Inchiquin (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Jdorney, interesting discussion.
- I do wonder if the weak link in the Irish Confedederate armies was Munster... Preston, for all his faults could at least
- hold an army together but Barry disgraced himself, proving a drunkard. As such he was not seen as fitting to command an army
- leaving the Munster army rudderless for most of the 1640s; there were at least four different leaders commanding te Munster
- army during the eleven years of war.
- Don't like to be a pain Jdorney but would it be possible to rename the conflict 'The Irish Uprising and Confederate war?'
- If the links need to be all changed I will do it, but if you are opposed to this than I'll it leave as is.
- At the moment I am a bit busy, but I am hoping to have more time to focus on this stuff by early next year. Not sure what I
- will focus on in future, but Funcheon Ford is a strong possibility as I think I may be able to get a copy of Castlehaven's
- memoirs, it is also described in Meehan; I should thus be able to have a good shot at it.
Hi Jdorney. Just a couple of thoughts: Regarding the infobox on the Irish Confed wars, do you know how many scottish soldiers were killed in the war?. I was thinking of adding this but I just do not have enough info to get a reliable estimate...the overall number must have been rather high given the thousands slain at Benburb at Lisnagarvey.
Apart from this, did you mention something about the 1641-42 uprising needing more detail?. I'll see if I can add something to this. I have a bit of info on a small battle in 1642, the battle of Swords...I am a bit 'burnt out' at the moment and I probably should focus on a small project like this rather than one of the larger topics. At any cost I find that even these smaller engagements (like Arklow 1649) can add a bit of light on the overall picture. - Inchiquin (talk) 11:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Michael O Siochru's 'Gods Executioner'
Hello Jdorney. I was pleasantly surprisd to find a couple of bookstores in Sydney were stocking the above book... I took your advice and got myself a copy, ASAP naturally. I have to say the title and cover is fairly clever from a marketing perspective; generally the Irish history books here are limited to potted histories and stuff on Northern Ireland. At the moment I am only half way through it but the detail is quite impressive (and much needed).
I have been thinking of starting up a 'list article' on the wars of Ireland by scale; It should be pretty basic but I will need help if I am going to do this. Inchiquin (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Jdorney, you have a good new year.
I have done up a table (from CP Meehan) listing the members of the Supreme Council of the Confederation of Kilkenny. Feel free to move it if you think it is in the wrong place.
Where abouts in Ireland do you live, just out of curiosity?. Inchiquin (talk) 11:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jdorney, how have you been?.
I have been wanting to write up another article for a while but I have been too busy lately due to a new job unfortunately... I am hoping to free up more time soon though, I'll see how I go. Apart from that I have lately been thinking about a few things related to Irish history:
1. Maybe we should think about doing an article on the siege of Arras?(1640). This featured in the French novel/film Cyrano de Bergerac but is of interest also because Owen Roe O'Neill was the commander defending the town.
2. There needs to be an article on the revolt of Silken Thomas. This possibly was the first reformation war outside of central Europe. Also the article on Silken Thomas is a bit old fashioned, maybe needs updating.
3. Finally, a while ago I did a table showing the members of the Confed of Kilkenny Supreme council. I am wondering how many of these are important enough to warrant articles?. I think Philip O'Reilly may be a very strong contender for an article. Just a few ideas, loads more to be done apart from these needless to say Inchiquin (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Spanish Civil War
Hey, your argument definitely makes sense. However, I would definitely suggest taking it to the talk page before (or even after for that matter) removing large chunks of cited material. Cheers, Murderbike (talk) 23:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Your reversion
Please bring things like this up on the talk page. I'm trying to get across that the new army had only a small pro treaty IRA influence. NewIreland2009 (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Edit summary
Jdorney edit summaries like this are not acceptable, please stop.--Domer48'fenian' 00:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Tag
I note the NPOV tag I added to the massacre article was removed by 'BigDunc' so I replaced it with a 3rd party tag as per the edit history. this has also been removed by Domer. Could you confirm that you regard the article as biased and that the NPOV tag should be readded. I'm finding Domer's editing now very disruptive and am thinking of taking the matter to the Troubles arbcom. Kernel Saunters (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)