Talk:Plantation of Ulster

Copyright infringement?

Just passing through and noticed some familiar sentences.

For example, compare "Because of political uncertainty in Ireland, and the risk of attack by the dispossessed Irish, the undertakers had difficulty attracting settlers (especially from England). This meant that they were forced to keep Irish tenants, destroying the original plan of segregation between settlers and natives. " (Paragraph 2 of 'The Plantation in Operation')

with the first part of paragraph 4 of

http://www.rootsweb.com/~nirfer2/Ulster_Plantation.htm

and "In the 1630s many Scots went home after King Charles I of England forced the Prayer Book of the Church of England on the Church of Ireland, thus compelling the Presbyterian Scots to change their form of worship. In 1638, an oath was imposed on the Scots in Ulster, 'The Black Oath', binding them on no account to take up arms against the King." (Paragraph 2 of 'The Wars of the Three Kingdoms and Ulster Plantation')

with some of paragraph 6 of the same page.

I have no idea who came first and since each page has additional information that the other doesn't, it seems likely that one author of one page did a poor job of paraphrasing some content from the other page. Anyone have an opinion or feel like re-writing the identical sections so that Wikipedia ensures it is taking the high road? Tre1234 08:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Legacy

Actually Gerry Adams might not be of Planter origin, considering a huge number of Irish Gaelic names were Anglicised due to British laws designed to stamp out Irish culture, and to the fact thatpeople who became English speakers would often change their surnames. Adams may originally have been "McAdam".

I have undone the hatchet job of an edit on the legacy section preformed last November 2008. I am not a regular Wikipedia editor, so i would appreciate if a regular editor could have another look and make sure all is ok. I would regard the Plantation of Ulster as having a stricking bearing on the history of this island, and therefore as having an important and far reaching legacy with should be covered properly in this article. The previous edit simply stated that there was no legacy. None at all. Period!?!?! Itsmjlynch (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't remove sourced and referenced text just because you don't like it. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have again undid this hatchet job of an edit. Sourced and referenced it may be, but hardly NPOV, and as such is not to unwikipedia standards. Could you or someother editor provide a blanced and informative section on the legacy of the plantation, rather then the previous "there is no legacy" edit? What's the point in having this section then? Itsmjlynch (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Jdorney and Parkwell for the input. I think that this section now has a viable starting point. The rest of the article reads quite well, but this section still needs to be improved (I note lack of references). As stated before, I am not a regular wikipedia editor, but i can give it a go if no-one else wants to? Itsmjlynch (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sourced and referenced it is, and as per WP:V and WP:RS. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Jdorney, if I may, there a editors here on wiki who go to some trouble to reference the information which appears on articles. I don’t think I need to go to the trouble of explaining the ins and outs of WP:V and WP:RS. Suffice to say they are there for a reason. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. Now the information I removed was tagged in November 08, more than a reasonable amount of time you’ll agree. You reverted, without discussion, and suggested that “its generally known” as if that was some form of mitigation. Its not! I suggest you now reference the information, or self revert. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well lets go get some good references then, even if it is just to state the obvious, and leave the hatchet back under the bed :). the article is reading a hell of alot better now after Jdorney, Parkwell and Dormer48 revisions. My own 2c worth is that some parts still need to be reworked, in particular the "It is his contention that four out of the six counties planted were never part of “Orange” Ulster until the Partition of Ireland" line. This line doesen't make real sence. Should the word "planted" be replaced with "of Northern Ireland?" Also, I not sure the part about surnames is adding anything to the article; I wouldn't cry if it was removed. Otherwise, I think the section could be expanded slightly to feed into the wider subsequent political and social history. Comments/ Suggestions please? Itsmjlynch (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The word "planted" is correct, as in the title of the article "Plantation of Ulster." Northern Ireland however doesen't make real sense in this context because it did not exist. I agree that editors should get some good references, because it must be attributed to a reliable, published source.--Domer48_'fenian' 22:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah Domer, we meet again. I fully agree that some facts need refs. However, what you've done is find a single author Who I confess I've never heard of) who disputes the generally held consensus and then deleted the latter. This is hardly in the spirit of sourcing material. You appear (for what reason I don't know) to be pushing a particular pov - ie that the plantation has nothing to do with the partition of Ireland rather than presenting facts to the reader. I cannot understand why you are arguing this, do you care to explain? But what the hell, lets reference it, if you insist.Jdorney (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jdorney, could I just point out that we don't agree that "some facts need refs." It is my view that all facts need refs. In that I'm supported by the community in the policies we have adopted and for very good reasons. Your view is that "its generally known" or “common knowledge” should be good enough for an encyclopaedia and I don't. That you have never heard of Thomas A. Jackson is regrettable, that you suggest he disputes the generally held consensus should make referencing much easier. I deleted unreferenced text, tagged since November 08, how long do you suggest it be left for? But then you think “it’s generally known" is good enough?

I have no intension of answering your personal comments on me and respectfully ask that you comment on content, not on the contributor. That’s not to suggest I’m not approachable, because I am, I just know from experience that commenting on a users motivation can get out of hand and undermine collaborative efforts. That two editors have different views creates a positive collaborative effort on an article in my opinion. All I request is that we support our views using referenced sources, so comments like “who disputes the generally held consensus” can not form the bases of a discussion. Because the standards applied to me on sources have in the past been very exacting, I expect the same from other editors. Exacting standards, has I believe made me a much better editor, benefits Wiki and therefore I don’t enter into articles I not familiar unless I’ve spent some time looking it up. That the internet forms such a small part of my sourcing, most of my sources are published based, I also expand reading lists on articles very quickly. I hope that my openness will have a positive effect, and that you will reciprocate in any collaborative efforts. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You know your WP manual of style Domer, I'll give you that.

Look, all I'm asking is that you explain yourself. Citing one author ( I looked him up btw, very interesting, but hardly neutral or modern) with one, lets say unusual, pov, and deleting the existing text is no help to anyone.

On the subject of refs, it's impossible to reference every single line of text and anyway it would make articles unreadable. For example, if we were writing about Ireland, would we have to say, Ireland is a an island , whose capital is Dublin , located in western Europe ? Where facts are not disputed, or rare, or controversial, there's no need for detailed citations. So in this case, ok we can ref it, it should be easy enough, but what I'm asking is why you want to delete this section? Do you not agree it? If not, why not? Then we can start talking about refs to explain the various positions.

At the moment you're just saying, 'its not referenced therefore it's not true' and refusing to talk about the issues. Jdorney (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I said above, your view was that it is "generally known" yet you did not know Thomas A. Jackson. Having never read any of his work, or know anything about him till now, you can still tell me he is hardly neutral or modern with an unusual, pov. Ireland Her Own, was first published in 1946. It has been re-printed right up until 1991, not many history book you can say that about, and I know books. Now having looked up Jackson, how about providing sources for the text. You say he has an unusual, pov? What would that be? You say he is hardly neutral? Provide an author who is? You say he is not modern? Name a history author, who you think will still have a book being published 62 years at least from now? In short provide a source for the text. I’m not going to indulge you by addressing any more of your opinions.

“Where facts are not disputed, or rare, or controversial, there's no need for detailed citations.” Like I have said before any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source. You never heard of Jackson, yet his book has been around and published a lot longer than any modern history book. You never heard of Jackson, “who disputes the generally held consensus” you say, yet have not provided any source to challenge him? Provide a source which supports your opinion which says that Jackson disputes the generally held consensus. Provide a source that says that the unreferenced information I removed is the generally held consensus. I’ll now use this discussion as a reference to support my argument against responding to you when you continue to prevaricate when asked to provide a source. It is also an example of how editors can contrive an argument based on nothing other than their own opinion. Your detailed and varied views on an author you never heard of is a good example. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what? Is there a point in there somewhere? Good faith sure aint what it used to be. Jdorney (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Jdorney blind reverts are no substitute for not providing references. Your edit summary is not accatable and uncivil. Inability to reference information, should not degenerate into unacceptable behaviour. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, which you have now done twice. Our policies are there for a reason, and one of Wikipedia's core content policies. These policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles.--Domer48_'fenian' 00:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you refuse to discuss the issues but prefer to engage in edits wars, Domer, (that was hardly a blind revert btw) here is the relevant directive from NPOV policy, I quote,

" In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity. For example, to state that "according to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field."

Th article should acknowledge that you're citing a minority view - therefore the burden of proof is on you Domer. So I'm reverting. As for civil, I suggest you practice what you preach my friend 14:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Attributing competing views, is not unsourced commentary or opinions. You appear now to simply want to make a point and as I have pointed out above, been reduced to personal attacks and incilility. You have been afforded the oppertunity to provide sources, and the issues has been flagged since 2007. You have ignored the last two sections and discussions and blindly reverted. Stop now, --Domer48_'fenian' 15:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Policy clearly is stated above. Supermajority view and a tiny minority view, priority goes to supermajority view over a tiny minority view. You are the one disrupting the article. You stop. Jdorney (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

plantation of Ulster

It is interesting that while the figure of 4000 planters killed in the rising of 1641 is often quoted it is rarely mentioned that the plantation exercise involved the calculated slaughter of an estimated 30000 plus native irish ,men women and children, and subsequently under the Cromwellian " Hell or to Connaught "campaign thousands more were murdered and up to 60000 native Irish hunteddown by "Man catchers" to provide white slaves to be sold for thye sugar plantations and brothels of the Barbados not to mention the thousands others transported as indentured servants. The political mindset of Ulster Protestants is still that they civilised the inferior native Irish. Little wonder the native Irish continue to rise in rebellion on a regular basis in the province of Ulster.81.131.16.200 06:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you follow some of the links to historical articles, you will find that the atrocitires of all sides in the 1640s are well covered. See Irish Rebellion of 1641, Irish Confederate Wars and Cromwellian conquest of Ireland.

However, there was no "calculated slaughter" before the plantion. It is true that the province was heavily de-populated by the Nine Years War (Ireland), where the English used scorched earth tactics, but no planned massacre. Cromwell's actions, as I have said are covered in the relevant articles. Don't know where you're getting your figures from though, apparently you know better than the specialist historicans working in the area? Jdorney 16:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It was just like north America, they murdered to get the land. Over a number of years thousand's of native Irish were killed, that's the plain and simple fact of the matter. (but they didn't kill us all, that was their biggest mistake) Culnacreann 21:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• The Ulster Plantation was very different from the settlement of North America. In general the native Irish population were not driven from their lands and they were certainly not massacred! In America the natives were also decimated by European diseases, something that (for obvious reasons) never occured in Ulster.

• Historians from A.T.Q. Stewart to Jonathan Bardon have all stressed the fact that the Irish remained in possession (but not ownership) of their land and the natives and the settlers actually lived in close proximity to eachother.

• All in all I think this Wikipedia article is very fair and balanced.

Protestant Scottish Highlanders in Ulster

Did any Protestant Scottish Highlanders settle in Ulster? Where has it been stated that Protestant Scottish Highlanders settled in Ulster? I thought Ulster was planted exclusively by English and Lowland Scot settlers.

In the initial plantation in 1610 it was specified that the settlers had to be English speaking and Protestant, but in the decades that followed, many thousands more immigrants arrived from Scotland, many of whom were Gaelic speaking Highlanders. Not all of the Scots were Protestants either, the MacDonnell or MacDonald clan were Catholics and settled extensively in the north of county Antrim.

Jdorney 23:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. Thank you very much for typing up this answer for me. It is very informative, enlightening and interesting.

This topic is quite interesting, I wonder how the native Irish responded to the Catholic highlanders moving to Ulster as opposed to the Protestant lowland Scots and English. -CM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.17.34 (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"...the MacDonnell or MacDonald clan were Catholics and settled extensively in the north of county Antrim...". This is totally incorrect. The McDonnels had gained a foothold in north Antrim long before the plantation, they did not come as part of the plantation, they shared a common Gaelic culture with the native Irish, unlike their lowland Scottish neighbours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owenreagh (talk • contribs) 18:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Rebels?

Surely the Irish,who were defending their land against an English invasion,can't be called rebels,they were defending not rebelling.If there is no objection I'll delete the words rebels.--Jack forbes (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Women In American colonies

Actually there were a large number of white English females in the English North American settlements as evidenced by the small amount of Native American DNA found in modern white Americans unlike the Mexicans and other Latin Americans whose maternal DNA shows a significant Indian admixture. jeanne (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, the early VA colony had more men in the beginning, but in contrast New England was characterized by being settled by families and young couples. VA did start to attract more women, but the colony had a higher mortality rate for years for both sexes than was the case in New England.--Parkwells (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Highland Clearances

Did any Protestant emigrants from the Scottish Highlands move to Northern Ireland as a result of the Highland Clearances and eventually become part of Ulster's Protestant community? Please let me know.

Scottish Gaelic Planters

I am going to amend the section entitled "Ulster Plantation and the Scottish Border Problem". In particular there are several problems with the following assertion - "Not all of the Scottish planters were Lowlanders, however, and there is also evidence of Scots from the southwest Highlands settling in Ulster. Many of these would have been Gaelic speakers like the native Ulster Catholics, continuing a centuries-old exchange".

Saying that evidence exists of highland Gaelic Scots being planted in Ulster is not the same as providing the evidence. Moreover, if there were Gaelic speaking highlanders planted in Ulster they did not come on the basis of the centuries old tradition of highlanders serving Irish chieftains and being rewarded with their own land and cattle. They, if they were planted, would have been part of a system which brought the previous Gaelic political, economic and social system to a complete end, whereas previously they fitted seamlessly into that system. The plantation put an end to the "centuries old exchange" between Gaelic Ulster and Gaelic Scotland, but it began a new era of exchange between Anglo Ulster and Anglo Scotland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owenreagh (talk • contribs) 19:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Citation Needed" -- Not

"The present-day partition of Ireland into the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is largely as a result of the settlement patterns of the Plantations of the 17th century." That is not a fact requiring citation, being too freakin' obvious. Do we need a citation for the notion that the black population of America is largely originated by the importation of slaves? No -- innumerable sources take that for granted. Ditto the obvious foundation of Northern Ireland in the confessional differences established by the 17th-century plantations. ----Andersonblog (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that Andersonblog, however it dose need a citation, and I will be challanging the information based with a source which is both WP:RS and WP:V. Therefore I need the information sourced so I can attribute it to an author. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 13:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

On the same note, the article has had an inprove tag since September 07. Either the information is referenced or its removed. I'll leave it for a bit longer, since you are now intrested. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 14:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed some of the unreferenced text. I'll look at referencing some of the other sections. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The logical comparison with the black population would be to say that the Protestant population of Northern Ireland is largely originated by the Plantation, and not to go beyond that and say that partition was largely caused by the Plantation.

Firstly, the existence of a large Protestant population in Ulster does not result exclusively from the Plantation. Thousands of settlers came independently of the Plantation (possibly moreso than took part in the Plantation). And, by 1921, the majority of Protestants lived in Antrim and Down - counties that were outside the "settlement patterns of the Plantation".

Secondly, it does not follow automatically that either the Plantation or the existence of a Protestant population inevitably led to partition.

Now, I personally agree that the Plantation was a significant contributory factor in creating the circumstances which - 300 years later - led to partition. But that is simplistic and the making of such an assertion - especially one that says partition was largely a result of the Plantation - certainly requires a reference.

My personal view is that it would be accurate to say something like the existence of a large Protestant population in Ulster, distinct from the Catholic Irish population, and resulting in part from the Plantation, contributed to the creation of two irreconcilable ethnic groups in Ireland and ultimately to the circumstances leading to the creation of Northern Ireland in 1921.

But that is a personal view and I doubt such an assertion would be acceptable without references. Mooretwin (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you Mooretwin for your positive contribution. So at least we can all agree on the need for referencing. Another interesting aspect which you might consider, and is not currently in the article, is that the vast majority who took part in the 1798 rebellion were from the Protestant churches, and the founding leaders of Irish Republicanism were from the same background? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the assertion that "the vast majority who took part in the 1798 rebellion" were Protestants needs a reference! In Antrim and Down, yes - not sure about elsewhere. Mooretwin (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Yes I can reference it, Catholics the laws against Catholics? Do you think we should add it in the Legacy section? --Domer48_'fenian' 23:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. Mooretwin (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

In the Legacy section should we mention 1798? After all it was Planter decendants who formed the backbone of the Rebellion. So the question is, how did we get from the plantation, to 1798, to partition. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Notes and references

It would be better to have just one form of notes or citations, rather than two.--Parkwells (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I had a go at the references, and removed the ref's not in use. Two will need page numbers.--Domer48_'fenian' 17:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Could Editors please cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 23:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Good reading

Hi all

I have been reading this as I came across it in a random article search, lots of information I didn't know before !!

It has got me thinking a lot about the history of Ireland and how we English took advantage of those peoples closest to us. Anyway, keep up the good works. I did make some small changes to punctuation etc, but hopefully these are not too serious !

Cheers--Chaosdruid (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding text to referenced text

I've removed text which was tacked onto referenced material. Such as "The Plantation of Ulster is often considered the origin of sectarian strife in the northern Irish province. The Planters of the 17th century are often considered the ancestors of todays primarily Protestant Unionist community, who dsire to maintain the link with Britain." Compleatly unreferenced. As is "Conversely, the mostly Catholic Irish nationalist community is often thought of as being the descendant of the natives dispossessed by the Plantation." Likewise "It is also commonly held that Catholics tend to have Irish surnames while Protestants tend can be identified by English or Scottish ones." This also is incorrect "However, historian of 17th century Ulster John McCavitt has warned..." McCavitt has not warned anyone.

This was also added "The Plantation, as the origin of ethno-religious division in Ulster, is sometimes cited as being the long term cause of the Partition of Ireland in 1921." Who has cited it? This was just added without any attempt at referencing. The exact same thing was done here with this "However it has also been argued that the politics of modern Ulster unionists can be traced back no further than the late 19th century. And that, for example in the late 18th century, many Ulster Protestants subscribed to the seperatist nationalism of the Society of the United Irishmen. " Just simply adding text without any referencing.

I have requested references recently, which have still not been provided, and have asked again but to no avail. I can only ask yet again, could Editors please cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books. Thanks,--Domer48_'fenian' 23:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yet again, this unreferenced opinion has been re-added to the article without any discussion. Edit warring is no substitute for referenced text. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have again addressed the text as outlined above. While I now consider it disruptive to keep adding opinions dressed as fact, I have no alternative to cite policy. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.When content in Wikipedia requires direct substantiation, the established convention is to provide an inline citation to the supporting references. The rationale is that this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references. Alternative conventions exist, and are acceptable if they provide clear and precise attribution for the article's assertions, but inline citations are considered 'best practice' under this rationale. For more details, please consult Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to cite sources. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.--Domer48_'fenian' 08:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Per WP Original Research, Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. The best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking information from different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims on an article page in our own words, yet true to the original intent — with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.

I am not prsenting my opinions but summarising those expressed in the sources. The existing citations fully support the text. Thank you. Jdorney (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Legacy

I am going to clarify the final sentences of the "legacy" section:

"For example, it is often stated that Ken Maginnis surname is closer to original Irish than Martin McGuinness."

It should be noted that the pronunciation of both "Maginnis" and "McGuinness" is exactly the same and neither version is closer than the other to the original Irish orthography, which is "Mag Aonghusa".

"Another good example is Terence O'Neill former Prime Minister of NI, who is descended from the famous O'Neill clan in Ulster."

It should be noted that despite bearing the name of O'Neill, this line of the family in fact assumed the surname by Royal license in lieu of their original name Chichester. In turn, the Chichesters could trace the O'Neill part of their lineage through Mary Chichester, wife of the Reverend Arthur Chichester, rector of Randalstown, and daughter of Henry O'Neill of Shane's Castle. —Preceding unsigned

Provide references, you've been told often enough. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)