User talk:Jdorney

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. BigDunc^Talk 10:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've done it for you.The Thunderer (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

My sincerest apologies. I've put it back. Very sorry. The Thunderer (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the intervention. Good call. The Thunderer (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Never mind, I made the changes myself as best I could. Inchiquin (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looked over it, It looks good Jdorney. BTW I should have the Plunkett article ready soon. Inchiquin (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Apart from the 1640s, more work needs to be done on the Desmond wars (but unfortunately it is even harder to get books on

this than the Confed wars). Inchiquin (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sorry for my slow reply, I was unable to edit over the weekend so I missed your post. I'd echo the suggestion below. This intervention has got to be a good thing, as this applies to all editors who post on the article. Kernel Saunters (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply on my talk Kernel Saunters (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I havn't quite sorted out what the disagreement between you and Domer (and Dunc) is, but I'd like to ask you to please comment on the content, not contributor if at all possible. In addition, this is a notification that several of the articles you are working on fall under special general sanctions against reverting more than one time in 24 hours. If you revert more than once in 24 hours, you may be blocked from editing by myself or another administrator. This applies to all editors working in a sanctioned area which in this case covers pretty much all subjects related to the Troubles.--Tznkai (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest asking more participation - if the dispute looks like its going to be intractable, talk to the other editors about using formal mediation.--Tznkai (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDCAB is an informal alternative to mediation as well.--Tznkai (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Getting away from the unseemly quarrel that is the Dunmanway Massacre article, I have finally expanded the sections of the guerrilla phase of the Irish Civil War. Your thoughts are welcome as we discussed this once before and I know this is an area you are interested in. Incidentally, it might be possible to have a civil discussion of the Dunmanway article again sometime soon as a beligerent user who will remain nameless seems to have been banned. Regards Jdorney (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)"

Looks fine to me.Red Hurley (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you have now reverted twice on Ulster Special Constabulary after previously being informed of the 1RR restriction on Troubles related articles, I have blocked you for 24 hours.

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.

Please note: All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.

Please stop your edit warring. --Blowdart | ^talk 19:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why only British Nationalism "in relation to Ireland"?!!! Why not British Nationalism - period? (Right thinking editors will, correctly, excuse the sins of the anti-Imperialists. This ruling seems to fail to grasp that moral point. Sarah777 (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is an artitration ruling in relation to The Troubles. British Nationalism in relation to countries other that Ireland/NI is clearly irrelevant to it. There is no "moral point" here in the slightest. Black Kite 16:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jdorney, how are you?. Don't let the history wars get you down. So many of these wars are completely stupid anyhow.

I am thinking the gold rush in county Wicklow of 1795 would make for a good article. I have an article from New Scientist mag which looks at this event from a science perspective, are there any history books on this event you know of?.

I sometimes wonder if there is a link between the Gold rush of 1795 and the '98 uprising in Wexford... it reminds me a bit of the miners revolt at Eureka Stockade in 1854 (led by an Irishman, Peter Lalor, (apparently the password to the Miner's camp was 'Vinegar Hill').

Anyway I hope to work a more bit at 'spreading the word' about Irish history. Hoping to get a bit more free time soon so i can add a few more good articles. The fact remains that outside of Ireland, no one really knows anything about Irish history, much to my continued annoyance. Inchiquin (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jdorney. Just so you know I am currently writing up an article on the Siege of Kilkenny (1650). You suggested this would be a good idea for a battle article, I agree with you here as (1.)it was this was the first time the storm tactics of the New Model army failed to overcome the defenders and (2.) Kilkenny was of symbolic importance to the Irish as capital of the Confederacy of the 1640s. Finally (and most importantly) I have a lot of books covering this siege.

Apart from that, a while back I read a detailed description of Phelim O'Neills 1642 bungled attack on Drogheda, but I can't remember where the hell I read it. Just out of interest have you ever come across this book?, I'd like to have a closer look at if if possible Inchiquin (talk) 10:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Jdorney.

Several months ago I started up a webpage (a blog) with the intention of storing the articles and perhaps displaying articles I wrote up on Wikipedia in their original form (This was fortunate, given what has since happened to the Portadown Massacre article!).

However not long after I decided to make the page into a prototype for a website I would like to start up...as you know I am rather passionate about Irish history of the 16th & 17th century and I do not feel Wikipedia is the best vehicle for casting light on this important and poorly understood period of Irish history.

Originally I was going the focus on the 16th & 17th centuries but I have since narrowed the focus down to the Eleven years of war from 1641-53... the blogpage address is http://inchiquin.blogspot.com/, I have finished some articles but most are still in the pipeline.

Would you be interested in helping me with this project?. I feel your Wikipedia articles are of good quality (e.g The Siege of Duncannon article) and I would like you to help out. If you are have too much on your plate however I can of course understand. Inchiquin (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jdorney, send me an email to gealai(at)hotmail.com so I can speak to you about it in more detail. Inchiquin (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without even looking at the content the removal of {{Unreferenced section}} tags and not providing references is not a solid edit by any measure. So I've reverted your edit simply because of that. That sort of edit really does not help your argument in any way. --Blowdart | ^talk 15:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jdorney:

I'm delighted to announce that we've started a new Ireland Wikimedian email list, that you can join, at mail:WikimediaIE. For Wikimedians in Ireland and Wikimedians interested in events in Ireland and efforts in Ireland. It's there to to discuss meetups, partnerships with Museums and National Archives, and anything else where Wikipedia and real life intersect. --Bastique ^demandez 23:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

is being discussed at [1]--Epeefleche (talk) 07:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JD, I will not engage in an edit war - so how long do you reckon I should wait before zapping that nonsense? Sarah777 (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, old friend. Nice to see you're still in action. You've changed "friends"to "enemies" on Peadar O'Donnell; I believe the point the original writer was making is that O'Donnell was on the same side as deValera et al during the civil war. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. My ban is somewhat ill-defined; I've gone into it in detail on my user page. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up. Massive POV-pushing by 'new ed.' at an article to which you made sig. contributions . Has already made a total bags of Fianna Eireann and tried the same codology at Oriel House, Westland Row. Would rather not have to put out all the brushfires on my own-io. Regards. RashersTierney (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for heads up. Sorted now, I hope. Jdorney (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not leave unhelpful edit summaries as you did here. He addressed your points on talk. Also, while 3RR in 24 hours is an electric fence, you can be blocked for edit warring over a longer period. Please discuss more and revert less. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Points were certainly not addressed. If by that you mean anawered honestly. Have a look. Jdorney (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Watch the incivility, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be civil with people who show good faith. Always have. But not with someone who is stalking my edits and trying to intimidate me which is what is happening here. Jdorney (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watch it with the revert counts, please. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Wayside Celtic F.C. has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

amateur sporting club, lacks 3rd party references, does not meet general notability guidelines.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's what I call wiki slang... there may be some more technically accurate term. Basically the lead of a wikipedia article is called a lede; why? No clue. But it's true. Simonm223 (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Jdorney (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not just wiki-slang, it's journalist jargon. See also Wiktionary, the American Heritage Dictionary, and Word of the Day. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Wayside Celtic F.C., an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayside Celtic F.C.. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. RadioFan (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your comment on Ireland and World War I. I'm currently in the middle of trying to improve it. What faults do you find with the military sections, currently? Do you have any ideeas about how to go about fixing them? Jdorney (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, yourself and User:Osioni do seem to have turned this into a much more encyclopedic article ! It gets the facts right and covers the controversial and sensitive issues of the division over participation and memory. Perhaps it needs addition of details of naval activities around the Irish coast, as this was a key region in the U-boat war ? Perhaps mention the 36th capture of the Schwaben Redoubt during the Somme battle ? This was a major achievement. It was again lost due to inability to get reinforcements forward, but that was not their fault. There remain a few minor grammatical errors which I'll fixup. regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 08:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I know almost nothing about the U-boat war in WWI and how the navy defended against it. But I get the impression that the Irish coast had to be patrolled far out to sea for submarines and mines, especially as it was on the sealane to the United States. So I would assume that Naval bases in Ireland would have been important. Admiral Jellicoe wrote about these issues in his book "The Crisis of the Naval War", 1920... you can get it from http://www.archive.org/details/crisisofnavalwar00jellrich and http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/10409 . regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on John T. Prout requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Josh Parris 04:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are mentioned here BigDunc 19:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the AE report placed by User:BigDunc. I do agree that you have violated the 1RR set up on Troubles articles. Instead of a short block, as I could do, I am going to give you a final warning. Please stop edit warring on this (and any other articles). I'm taking this light step here (I could have placed you on the probation allowed by the Troubles ArbCom as well as the block), because I'm hoping that this is all that's necessary. SirFozzie (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please do not do copy & paste moves of an article. The terms upon Wikipedia is licensed requires that all ancillary history be available as needed (with certain exceptions regarding revision hiding and oversight). If you need help with a move, ask. Don't try to do it yourself (ESPECIALLY when the page move is controversial). SirFozzie (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly support the unblocking of this editor. I think the lesson will not have gone unlearned, and a week's block for such a generally productive and unproblematic editor would be unnecessarily punitive. A commitment to avoid this particular article for a short period might be an appropriate alternative? RashersTierney (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you RT. Not much more to say. Rules are rules I suppose. I did revert more times than allowed. I'm very sorry and won't do it again. Question though. How are we supposed to protect article from npov if we can't revert? Jdorney (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jdorney, I'm concerned by your comment at WP:AE, where you described Domer48 as "one editor whose entire contribution to WP consists of edit warring and requests for blocking of other users".[2] Don't you think that's over-stating things a bit? I've seen many positive contributions from Domer48. When you make hyperbolic comments like that, it tends to weaken all the rest of your comments as well. A better way to proceed is to be as understated as possible, so as to help decrease the "noise to signal" ratio. Thanks, --Elonka 18:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but I haven't seen many constructive edits by Domer. I regard him as an utterly malign influence here on WP. That may be uncivil/personal attack/whatever. To be honest I don't care anymore. Have a look at his latest 50 edits for instance. Out of these, a total of 13 are on arbitration pages, mostly trying to get other editors blocked. Of the rest, (leaving aside the talk pages) without exception every edit is some kind of edit war on Irish nationalist topics. There is not a single constructive edit, in the sense of adding factual or well written content. A possible exception is this but even here he's actually just piling up references to make a political point. The same is true of virtually all of Domer's edits.

I see your point we should keep cool heads, but I have never found Domer to be a user who is prepared to discuss a topic reasonably and reach, or respect, consensus. On the Dunmanway page he's been reverting and threatening other editors for well over a year. And that's aside from making the article a vehicle for POV as well as virtually unreadable.

But the most blatant case I have experience of is the Kilmichael Ambush. This was not a content dispute, it was purely about trying to intimidate me out of editing. He continually reverted to changes originally made by another user User:Superfopp here. When questioned on the Talk, Domer was unable to jusify his edits except, as usual, by citing policy and threatening people who disagreed with him. Because there actually was no content he could dispute, it finally got whittled down to one sentence, which had to go to Third Opinion. The reason I stuck at it was purely to validate my right to edit articles without him harrassing me.

I'm not usually into getting people blocked but I've tried too many times on the Dunmanway article to reason with Domer to be under any illusions. WP would be a better place without him.

Regards, Jdorney (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that others share your concerns, the best place to express them is probably in a User Conduct RfC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Domer48. For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance. If you do go this route, it is my strong recommendation that you keep your own commentary as civil and neutral as possible, as the way these generally run, the behavior of the person filing the RfC, is probably looked at just as closely as the person who is the subject of the RfC. --Elonka 19:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, I'm only going to use arbitration if there are a number of other editors and admins who are going to back me as I'm not going to waste my time exchanging accusations with Domer. In my view it's the admin's job to regulate user content, I've never been an admin, and have no wish to ever become one. My concern is, as it has been since 2005, to develop the Irish history articles here as best I can. I'll be civil to Domer, but that is not going to change his behaviour one jot (as I think you've already found out yourself). What I will not concede is that he gets to dictate content in a whole swathe of Irish history articles. Jdorney (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC has nothing to do with arbitration. It's just a place where you can lay out your concerns in a structured format, and other editors can lay out their concerns, and/or comment on whether or not they agree with your concerns. Uninvolved editors are also invited to comment, to state whether they agree that there is a problem, or whether they have any other suggestions on how to proceed. If it is your opinion that Domer48 is a disruptive influence, then an RfC is the next logical step. If you do not wish to file an RfC, then please just keep comments focused on the article, rather than the editor. If you do want to comment on the editor, then an RfC is the place to do it. The choice is yours. --Elonka 20:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see where you're going now. Put my money where my mouth is, right? As I said, I'll be civil to Domer where I have to deal with him. Can't promise any more than that.Jdorney (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That'll work, thanks!  :) --Elonka 03:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Foy (who I originally added as a source) gives both views (the ones in the article), then goes on to theorise what may have happened. Foy certainly believes it possible that McKee and Clancy may have realised their situation was hopeless and attempted to escape, thus I do not believe we should favour one side or the other but present both sides as is done at present. I also believe (but without checking) that Margery Forester and possibly other sources speculate as to what may have happened, and theorises that assuming the British realised they had captured McKee and Clancy would have been unlikely to summarily execute them without first exhausting all possible avenues to extract information about the whereabouts of Collins and other wanted people. Their execution within hours of capture would not make sense under the circumstances. O Fenian (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forester says "It is not inconceivable that the three made a desperate bid for freedom, or at least for a swift death", then "Such a chance to extract a betrayal of Collins, Mulcahy and Brugha was not one to be lightly lost by Auxiliaries aflame for reprisal". So basically what I said above, only more brief. O Fenian (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you revert yourself here? It would be your 2nd revert on this (Troubles) article in 24 hours. Many thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Madness, however. The new wording doesn't even make sense. Jdorney (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only too true, but that seems to be how arbcom enforcement regulars reckon things. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jdorney you have marked your last edit on the USC article as a minor edit, which I feel wasn't this was probably a mistake but a read of this will see why I have raised the matter with you, best BigDunc 19:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BigDunc 19:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I said I think the other version (the one I reverted) to be far more POV, although there are some sections that you removed that may be considered not to be. Black Kite 23:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The remainder of the article is a content issue and so I was intimating to Dunc that it would not be wrong to revert this - I was more concerned about his replacing of the lead with an unsourced POV statement. As an involved admin with Troubles issues I do not think it would be helpful for me to comment one way or another on which of the remainder of the version is better, as such. Black Kite 01:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Jdorney, canvassing to avoid 1RR is uncool. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asking interested editors to help is a problem? Jdorney (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you only ask editors on one side, yes, explicitly so.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get personal but "the other side" is no problem. Two serial reverters is a problem. Jdorney (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message Domer. I think we've established that asking other editors to contribute to teh article is not canvassing provided all views are represented. I've gone out of my way to contact editors of various political views. Thank you. Jdorney (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! How are you? I have sent you an e-mail not long ago, any chance you have seen it? Take care, Dorit (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your commenting and voting in the arbs only area.--Tznkai (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! Sorry. Jdorney (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of moving your comment to a "Statement" section on the page, I hope that's alright.[3] Then if you want to add more, just post in that section and you should be fine. There's a maximum size of statement, but you're nowhere near close to that at this point, so it'd fine to expand your thoughts if you'd like. :) --Elonka 21:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, best of luck with the motion Elonka :)Jdorney (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I'd be happy to help, but (as can be seen by how quickly I've come back and cleaned up the 36th Div page), I don't have a lot of free time for WP. I'd be happy to do what I can, especially in the area of editing (my trade) to help with phrasing, etc. Where I have relevant content, I will be glad to share that as well. Winterbadger (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff, welcome aboard! Jdorney (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good new year. BigDunc 18:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to see that you are back in harness. You might be interested in this Talk:Second English Civil War#Ireland as part of Royalist Strategy -- PBS (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Jdorney, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free images are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User:Jdorney/Ulster Special Constabulary. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the Jan 1923 order / see what you think.Red Hurley (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J, would you take a look at Irish National Army, please. There is some serious historical revisionism going on. --Red King (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't think anyone disputes that the Protestants were the big winners, or that the majority of Protestants supported William, however, sometimes in history it seems the detail can be more 'fuzzy' then simple generalities. The text for the 2 Refs as requested:

• Hayton

A small minority of protestants actively supported the jacobite cause: nonjuring clergy, complaisant office-holders, a few high-flying Anglican squires in the cavalier tradition, and others who were only recent converts from popery and retained not only catholic family connexions but also their traditional political attitudes.

• Harris (ellipses are examples to illustrate the text); from Chapter specific to Ireland

It would be wrong to convey the impression that James had no Protestant support. Many Protestants, particularly those of the Established Church, had qualms about renouncing their allegiance to their legitimate king, even though they had no sympathy for Tyrconnell’s agenda. … Although the climate had certainly changed by the following March, and many Protestants had either fled, been brutalized out of their allegiance, or come to accept the English Convention’s judgement that James had abdicated and that William and Mary were now their lawful sovereign, there were still some Protestants in Ireland who welcomed James’s arrival, believing that his presence would help restore law and order. … Quite a few Protestants of the Established Church were to fight with James against William III, indeed according to one member of William’s army in Ireland, 5,000 of the 7,000 horse that were to fight with James at the Battle of the Boyne were English Protestants! [reference given to a primary source Roger Morrice‘s Entring Book ] Some of the nonconformists who had benefitted from Tyrconnell’s assault on the corporations, and most particularly the Quakers, allied themselves with James [reference given to a primary source an [ [Egerton] mss ].

--Utinomen (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G'day John.

As fate would have it I was thinking about contacting you regarding a Wikipedia issue, but I can bring it up later.

OK, regarding Cashel there are apparently only two surviving contemporary sources relating to the attack: One is an account written by an unknown Parliamentarian soldier in September 1647. The other is a letter written by a Jesuit, Andrew Sall, of the same month. Both are published in the book on Murrough the Burner by Ivar O'Brien (the book is not a well regarded, Ivar is a descendant of Murrough and is a bit partial to the family hero. But it does include some handy sources in the appendix.)

Here are the relevant passages:

Unknown soldier- ...in the church we killed above seven hundred men, whereof many were priests and friars, besides some women that perished in the action. I am confident so many men were not seen slain in so small a compass of ground these many years; they lay five or six deep in many places; not an officer or soldier escaped but one major and the Governor, who as I hear has since died of his wounds...

(a fairly matter of fact tone, given the subject matter).

Andrew Sall- And such was the termination of this massacre, of this most unparalleled and abominable atrocity, in which 812 Catholics were slain... Old men whose only weapon was the rosary were slain before the altars along with children and women...

(there are two versions of the above, one says 1000 Catholics were killed rather than 812. Both also say the Irish killed 500 of Inchiquin’s men, which is ridiculous, but other aspects of the letter sound authentic.)

To be honest with you John, I am often unimpressed with modern history works on 1640s Ireland. The Irish historians are frequently sloppy, the British historians who write about it can’t even seem to get the basic facts right (which is unsurprising given that they have been ignoring Irish history for most of the past 200 years). This is one of the drivers of my obsession with the period.

That said, when I said ‘hundreds of civilians’ in the article I was extrapolating a bit: assuming that 700 soldiers were killed (as in the soldiers letter), and that 1000 in total died (according to one of the accounts by Sall) I assumed the difference must have been the civilians. But I guess if you take the 812 figure it may have been only 100 or so.

Don't hesitate to contact me if you have any other queries, Inchiquin (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add the ref from that book to the Cashel page within the next few days. Inchiquin (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your continued work on this article :)

With regards to this paragraph, I thought I'd better explain the issue that (to me) exists:

Cromwell's tactics at Drogheda were determined by two principle factors. The first was a need to quickly take the port towns on Ireland's east coast to ensure re-supply for his troops. The normal "campaigning season", when armies could live off the land, ran from spring to autumn. Cromwell had landed in Ireland late in the year and campaigning through the winter meant securing a constant re-supply from the sea.<ref>O Siochru pp77-80</ref> The second factor was Cromwell's experience of siege warfare. He had a lot of experience of sieges, such as his storming of Basing House in 1645, and the siege of Pembroke Castle in 1648.<ref name=DOL>{{Cite web|url=http://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk/output/page32.asp |title=The Duchy of Lancaster - Yorkshire|publisher=www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk |accessdate=2008-07-22}}</ref> However, Cromwell lacked the technical training to systematically construct siege entrenchments and bombard a fortified place into surrender. "The Cromwellian siegework repertoire included only the first and/or last stages; that is assault, or failing that, blockade".<ref>Padraig Lenihan, Confederate Catholics at War, p175</ref>

First we have an assertion that there are two principle factors. These two factors are then drawn from two separate sources. O Siochru, and Lenihan. It may well be that both sources do in fact cover both factors, but it is not clear from reading who exactly has decided that these two are primary, principle, or even the most notable factors. If no single article has brought together these two points as the "principle factors" then this is synthesis.

If both articles reference two primary factors, then we can say "Lenihan and Siochru suggest Cromwells tactics at Drogheda were determined by two principle factors".

If each article only introduces a factor apiece then we have created a piece of synthesis and instead should position it as "Historians have postulated two factors determining Cromwells tactics. Lenihan states....Siochru states...".

Attribution would resolve the issue in any case.

The "killing them as they ran" still rankles as unencyclopedic if we do not have it attributed to a specific source. Without it the sentence of "pursued through the street" would be no weaker. Koncorde (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! Haven't contacted you for ... years.

Got into an argument on the Humphrey Gilbert article about the practice of beheading slain combatants in 16thC Ireland - plenty of evidence for the English doing it, and I casually recalled that the Irish did it too, but because I had no reference for the latter it was agreed to omit it. I've noodled around a bit, but my access to sources is limited - just wondering if you have a view.

Argument is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oz_MH#Irish_beheadings Shtove (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your balanced reply. Hehe. I know you reckon Falls is dated, but I did find this (Elizabeth's Irish Wars ISBN 0094772207 p.345): "These wars were merciless. The Irish in revolt were nearly always treated as traitors to their sovereign and, if they fell into the hands of the royal troops, whole or wounded, killed on the spot. On the other side the kerne made almost a ceremony of beheading prisoners and wounded on the battlefield". No evidence cited, so not entirely convincing, but I am intrigued with this question - how much is real, how much propaganda?Shtove (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sceptical about Falls, at least not on matters of fact. Good old fashioned narrative historian, who I'm pretty sure was led by his sources rather than ideology. In this instance though he hasn't given examples or citations, just a brief general statement.Shtove (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spotted your good wishes elsewhere. Have a good one! RashersTierney (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you too Rashers! Planning on a thorough re-write of History of the Republic of Ireland as my project for the new year. Any interest in collaborating? Jdorney (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not. Just got a bunch of Irish history books as pressies (to add to a fairly substantial collection). It'd be an excuse to put them to some 'public utility'. RashersTierney (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! My initial thoughts hereJdorney (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it some thinking-time tomorrow. Guests due imminently for 'countdown'. Speak soon. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Thanks, it had all the signs of kid tagging. It really did need a cite. --Red King (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The web page that you cited gives a 404... --Red King (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 18:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for your interest in Jack Murphy. You made a change to the article on Jack Murphy to the effect that he wasn't one of the founding members of the UPC, citing a sole source which was a recent Sam Nolan radio interview. All due respect to Sam Nolan's version of events, and the communist party, but you should take the time to research newpaper articles of the day before making changes to this article based on either of these two sources. The CPI, it's associates and it's publications have demonstrated a strong bias against Murphy which is contradicted by newspaper articles and other sources of the day. Can you supply a reference for your edit from the 1950s other than hearsay from the recent Sam Nolan radio interviews? If you cannot, your recent edit will be deleted. Thanks for your consideration. Contact me for further discussion.

Ok got your message. Sorry for any confusion caused. However just to illustrate my point here as an example is a quote from a contemporary newspaper article which directly contradicts both the CPI and Sam Nolan's version of events. I have added this to the article for clarity. Thanks.

The Irish Democrat, April 1957, (Mairin Mooney interview) : The issue was clear. So, hardly more than twelve weeks ago, with 11 other men, typical Dublin workers of the best type, like himself, he (Jack) formed a committee for the purpose of protesting against unemployment. It was decided to focus the eyes of the country on their plight. He became secretary. From the very first, the movement had the support of the Trade Unions. --Mibbles (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bás, Fás, Blás has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced for over four years, fails WP:V

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. I just moved the text from another page originally. Jdorney (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article here that describes an alternate view of the battle of the Bogside as I know you have been editing that article [4]. There is nothing in the article that gives the opposing view. Kernel Saunters (talk) 12:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yeah it's a good article, representing the unionist view. I wouldn't necessarily agree with Campbell's views but its a good summing up of the way he saw things at the time. Jdorney (talk) 09:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good day John.

Been meaning to bring up one thing I've been thinking about for a while: In some respects, the Irish Rebellion of 1641 is not enturely unlike the German Peasants War of 1524-26. I can't help but notice however that there are considerable differences in the structure of these two articles on Wikipedia. In particular, the article on the German Peasants War has a section on Historiography.

Just out of curiosity, do you think this difference in structure is justified?. Or perhaps it might make sense to put a section on Historiography in the 1641 article?. Inchiquin (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it wouldn't be bad idea. (Actually the whole article could do with a spring cleaning). But it's the kind of thing that would have to be completed to a good standard before it went in - ie it would have to be fairly comprehensive to be helpful. A partial historiography would be positively unhelpful. Also it should be shorter and punchier than the rather long-winded section in the Peasants' war article in my opinion. Jdorney (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good day John. Just so you are aware I have started a Wiki article on the Dublin Gunpowder Disaster. As a resident of the fair city in question you may be in a good position to correct any errors this ignorant outsider might have let creep in.Inchiquin (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you posted on ClueBot Talk page. The IP you are using as been flagged as vandalism and you didn’t do it. This is possible because the Internet Service provider you are with will regularly recycle IP Addresses. This means you could now have an IP that was used by a spammer. Please ignore the warning. --JetBlast (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you. Jdorney (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A new English article on him is in process. See http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Romero_Gim%C3%A9nez in Spanish. In November 1936, following orders of Colonel Aureliano Álvarez-Coque, he led the defense form the French Bridge commanding a Battalion. For his heroic performance he becomes promoted by General Miaja to Lieutenant Colonel, being officialy congratulated on the Agenda of November 18. The Government of the Republic latter officially confirmed General Miaja's orders and finally ascending him to such employment on April 1938.[13] According to historian Ramon Salas Larrazabal, Romero was the "greatest hero of the defense of Madrid".[15] He headed the 6th. Division since May 1, 1937.[16] On July 1st. he was placed in command of the Second Army Corps [17] [18], which defended the outskirts of Madrid. He participated in the Battle of Brunete, although the performance of his unit was poor in the district of Usera. In mid 1938, when General Rojo requests Miaja to name commanders with energy and capacity for the Campaign of Levante, Colonel Romero was appointed commander of the XIII Corps of the Army since its inception in July 1938. [20] (Added to the Levant Army, it was previosly known as the "B" Army Corps) He fought on several fronts against German forces fighting alongside the rebels. [21] [22]. For his performance fighting motorized divisions of the "Blackshirts" Italian CTV was awarded his second "Medal of Courage". As Commander of the 4th Mixt Brigade, counting with Miaja's effective support and starting with the machinery that could be rescued from the Madrid workshop "Mobile Park" [23], he founded and directed a war material factory called "Romero Mechanical Factories" dedicated to the production of mortars and ammunition, mines and hand grenades, bombs with aerodynamic design, thermoses, tripods, shields for trenches, spare parts for rifles, machine guns and antitank and antiaircraft guns as well as engine repairs. During the Siege of Madrid, between 800 and 1,200 people did hard work around the clock under constant enemy fire. He is credited with the invention for the defense of Madrid for the mine that bears his name "Mina Romero", an anti-tank system consisting of a large cast iron metal box designed to fragment and shrapnel as an outcome to the explosion of 15, 35 or 60 Kg. of dynamite contanied depending on size. Hidden in the floor, and electrically detonated either manually or automatically by means of copper wires and glass tanks, it bursted from below enemimy tanks.[24] This is a technical innovation in the defensive systems at the time which was subsequently applied during World War II. Once in power, the new regime of Francisco Franco, processed in absentia and sentenced him to death by Garrote for his participation against the uprising and for being a Mason. [25] [26]. Regards Descendiente (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I would say notable actions for the defense of Madrid were also both the war materials factory working under fire and the invention of the anti-tank system. Would you prefer me to propose a text here, or rather directly edit the article, and if so, in which section? Regards Descendiente (talk) 02:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the relevant section is the November 1936 battle section. How about we work out a text here first? By 'notable' by the way, I mean not just things he did that were brave but important to mention in the overall context of the battle. Jdorney (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jdorney. Here is a proposal,

Insert in Battle for Madrid (November 1936)/Preparations:

Due to its strategical location over the Manzanares River, the Puente de los Franceses bridge was of a crucial importance. Colonel Romero heroically commanded Republican forces there, effectively repelling attemps to cross it and gain access to Madrid’s city center.

Insert in Battle for Madrid (November 1936)/Stalling and counter-attacks:

Colonel Romero had disagreements with anarchists, asked for the dismissal of Ricardo Sanz, proposed the dissolution of Durruti Column and the distribution of their men among other units.

Insert in Battle for Madrid (November 1936)/Front stabilises:

Colonel Romero, then in command of 4th. Mixt Brigade, establishes a factory in Madrid with 800 to 1,200 workers producing war materials non-stop under enemy fire. A then innovative anti-tank system known as Mina Romero was developed to burst them form beneath.

Regards. Descendiente (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I have no problem with the first proposed passage, with the exception of 'strategical' (should be 'strategic') and 'heroic' which is pov. No problem with the second one. The third one I don't think is necessary, it's a footnote to Romero's career but doesn't seem central to the siege of Madrid.

Regards, Jdorney (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jdorney. Done. Historian Ramón Salas Larrazábal http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Romero_Gim%C3%A9nez (who by the way fought on the Nationalist side, and eventualy became an Air Force Colonel under Franco's regime as well as a member of the Royal Academy of Moral and Political Science) has a pov different from yours on his four-volume, 4069 pages History of the Popular Army of the Republic, but I had no problem with editing the article according with your pov. Perhaps with time both might converge. Regards. Descendiente (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, it looks good. Just to be clear, I don't claim to be any expert on the Battle of Madrid myself, I don't know anything about Romero's role, but the wider significance of the arms factory to the battle would have to be demonstrated before it could go into that article. It seems to me that, as in Spanish wikipedia, the best place for it is in an article on Romero himself. Jdorney (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I think you are right. The number of 12,000 is wildly exagerated. Most of modern historians said that the death toll of the republican repression or Red Terror in Madrid, during all the war (1936-1939) was around 8,800 dead. Furthermore, spanish sources talks about 5,000 nationalist prisoners held in Madrid's prisons in 1936. About Vidal, I don't think that he is a reliable source. Hugh Thomas, Paul Preston and Antony Beevor do not cite his books, but they cite other spanish historians. Sorry about my poor english. User:Ajfernandez2001

Hello. I think that is a good idea. User:Ajfernandez2001

Hiya Jdorney, I'm half convinced...but still curious...is there anything about the incident anywhere else on wiki? Tom Pippens (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Jdorney, The paper printed verbatim "An official bulletin"

From infomation which came to hand from various sources it was learned that preparations were being made to bring off a coup in the Dublin area on Saturday night. Numbers of Irregulars came to Dublin from Cork, travelling via Liverpool, in order to take part in the proposed operations. The objective of the Irregulars was to isolate Dublin by destroying bridges, roads, railways, and other means of communication.

As the result of careful observation and the scheme of military operations carried out in the area by the troops, the entire plan of the Irregulars was frustrated, and prisoners to the number of 160, with large quantities of arms, ammunition, explosives, and other war materials, were taken. The thoroughness of the intelligence observation and military organization on the part of the Army is shown by the fact that not only was the proposed work of destruction prevented so that not even one bridge was destroyed, but the greater bulk of those who were to take part in the Irregular operations were made prisoners without any casualties amongst the troops.

DYK Both the Times and Ernie O'Malley have been successfully sued for libel? Tom Pippens (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to be more careful with your edits. If you see that another editor has made a mistake or two, fix the mistakes – don't revert their whole edit. On Siege of Drogheda you re-added the wordiness that I'd taken out. I don't see how anyone can argue that "in order to" is better than "to" or that "situated on the bank" is better than "on the bank". WP:MOS says that "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording". ~Asarlaí 17:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of doing this with you. It's not 'wordiness' (three extra words) and doesn't in any way impede ease of reading. It's you sticking in the odd word for what reason I've never been able to work out, usually to an inferior version. So ok, 'in order to' is clearer here because 'to',has other meanings - eg 'go from there to here'. 'Situated' is better because it makes clear that you're talking about the geography of the town, leaving out that word opens the possibility that you're talking about the town's population. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Jdorney (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying a fluent English speaker would be confused by the sentence "Mr Cromwell took a train to get to Drogheda"? Must we always say "Mr Cromwell took a train in order to get to Drogheda"? What about "Drogheda is in Ireland"? Must we always say "Drogheda is situated in Ireland"? If there are more words than is needed, it's wordiness. I'm only following the MOS. ~Asarlaí 18:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a rest. Jdorney (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter Hart, military historian, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Stanhope and Peter Hart (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Irish republicanism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the edit was by a blocked user who was violating his block by using IPs, edits reverted per WP:EVADE and WP:DENY. GiantSnowman 20:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, they should be reverted, regardless of whether or not they have merit. The editor in question is blocked, they should not be allowed to evade that block to edit. GiantSnowman 21:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but please read WP:EVADE - "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a block." Now that you have restored it, I will (obviously) not remove it again. The editor in question was blocked indefinitely for long-term disruption and sockpuppetry. As they continue to evade the block, as well as insult other users (myself included) I am inclined to propose a formal ban, which will make it easier to revert their edits. GiantSnowman 09:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your incitement of WP:IAR is honourable, but with blocked users and sockpuppets we need to have a strong stance. If the user in question was to stop socking (they won't - if I recall correctly, they threatened to sock more after I took them to WP:ANI) and if they stop with personal attacks, they we might consider unblocking the original account and allowing them to edit as normal. However, until that happens, then they should not be allowed to edit anywhere on Wikipedia, regardless of the merit of the edit. It's as simple as that. GiantSnowman 10:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if the user in question wants to edit on Wikipedia then they need to do it from one account, which is currently blocked, and they will only be unblocked under certain conditions - they may never be unblocked. The line that I, and others, take with editors who continually evade their block is that any edit made in violation of that block should be reverted, on sight, regardless of whether or not it has any worth or not. Or look at it this way - saying "oh, that blocked editor's edit was actually OK" is a slippery slope, and we should not be seen to be giving any legitimacy to the edit/editor, as that could even encourage further block evasion. GiantSnowman 12:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will not improve articles by allowing editors to evade their block, simple as. GiantSnowman 13:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to restore the edit after I have reverted the block evader, then that's fine - but that will not prevent me from removing them in the first place. GiantSnowman 17:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, don't really want to drag this old episode up again, but if you choose to re-add content previously added by a blocked user (i.e. this), please ensure it is at least referenced. Regards, GiantSnowman 22:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I though it was ref'ed. Please remove the unref'ed material. Regards. Jdorney (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, most of it was referenced, but I've removed that which wasn't. GiantSnowman 14:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing my typo, but I don't understand your edit summary. According to WP:LEAD, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." Surely the most important aspect of any war is what happened in the war? What was there before was 5% what day the war began and 95% what happened after it ended. I'm not saying what I wrote was especially good. It wasn't meant to be. I just wanted to fill a massive hole quickly. Ideally somebody will improve it. If there's any specific detail you think is out of place, by all means remove it. Or re-write the whole thing if you prefer. Scolaire (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah fair point. In principle I agree.

It's just that jumping in with Bloody Sunday gives the impression that 21 Nov 1921 was the start of the armed conflict, which of course it was not. Undoubtedly the events you've cited did represent an important turning point though. Maybe a a prior line or two suggesting how the conflict gradually escalated up to that point?

Jdorney (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even as I was writing it, I was aware that Bloody Sunday looked funny at the start of the paragraph, but as I say, I was doing it in a hurry and didn't know how to summarise 1919-20 in a short couple of sentences. There is some content at the end of the previous paragraph, of course, but still I agree it's a bit of a jump. I'd like to see those couple of sentences added.

Did you notice that you just typed "21 Nov 1921" too? It's obviously a reflex thing :-)

As you can see, I prefer to keep all discussion in one place. This page is on my watchlist. Regards, Scolaire (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! It must be like 'teh', instead of 'the'. Anyway, I've made a little edit, my go at summarising, see what you think. We could possibly do with a line about the northern (ie Belfast) violence of the period in the lead too. Jdorney (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I very much like the way you've done it. It reads much better. There is a quite lengthy section on "The north-east" so probably there should be something about that in the lead too. Scolaire (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll add a line on the north so. Jdorney (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to you message I had a look yesterday and as of now (history) there seem to have been no more changes, (and I think the last edit was a valid one). I do not watch that page so drop me another link if there are any further developments which you think would interest me.-- PBS (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think it's sorted now. I'm happy with that last edit. Jdorney (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I assumed Fitzpatrick was referencing both statements in the Ireland and World War I article. Alas, I came by Liam Kennedy/Philip Ollerenshaw: An Economic History of Ulster (1985) who calculate the war dead for the "Six Counties" as roughly half the number for the whole of Ireland (p184). Since they use the - probably outdated - figure of 49,000 war dead, I am not sure if this is of any help. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok. All I know really is the figure that David Fitzpatrick cited 'A Military History Ireland'. David Jeffries I believe has a breakdown of the casualties north and south, but I don't have it to hand. Fitzpatrick's figures seem only to refer the Irish Divisions, 10th, 16th and 36th, but since many Irishmen also served in 'British' units, the total of military dead must be higher than his 27,000. Jeffrey, again apparently estimates it about 35,000. http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Historical_Information/1916_Commemorations/Irish_Soldiers_in_the_First_World_War.html. Regards, Jdorney (talk)