Talk:History of Ireland/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Roman (sponsored) invasion

The term 'hypothesis' dignifies what is in fact a heap of speculation.--Shtove 21:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Timeline template of History of British Isles

I've created a timeline template of the History of the British Isles. My plan is to put it into that article, like the timelines of Irish State in the Irish states since 1171 article. I'm sure there plenty of mistakes, although I've deliberately left out some states/people for simplicity's sake. The "events" I've added are also obviously "Hiberno-centric", so would like the imput of other's to settle what other events should to be added. General comments are also welcome. Since the table is fairly complicated, if people want leave suggestions for events and things they would like changed on the templates talk page, I'll add them. --sony-youthpléigh 23:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I care not a whit for your "British Isles" agenda. (talk) 11:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Irish neutrality during World War II

The article Irish neutrality during World War II has been nominated for deletion. Please add your opinion to the discussion on AfD. --sony-youthpléigh 22:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


Does anyone else feel that much of this article consists of Irish history as occoured because of intruders (Vikings, Normans, Scots, English)? Might be worth keeping in mind that our history dos'nt start or finish with one invasion after another. Fergananim (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

revert as of May 2008

I have reverted the article to what it was earlier in the year because someone had done a 'cleaning up' job that had deleted many of the principal links and sub-sections, particularly those in the early modern section. Apologies if any good content has been accidentally deleted in the process. Jdorney (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jdorney. Sorry - but that's WAY too far back. The version you have reverted to was from some time in February. There have (as you note) been intermediate edits that added value. It is unfair to ask someone else to go through all that clean-up again. What specifically was removed that was valuable? Can you please consider taking the time to address any specific issues directly, instead of "undo-ing" several months of changes to salvage some (non-specific) "problems"? I have undone your reversal until you can confirm where the problems are. If you can be specific, I'll try and help address. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
OK Jdorney. I've reviewed the main changes between the two versions, and up until the "Early medieval era 800-1166" section, what we mainly have are minor copy-edit changes. From the "Early medieval" heading onwards, which initially deals with Viking influence, an editor appears to have attempted some summarisation. This is fine (given the overall length of this article and the fact that the relevant detail can be dealt with in the "sub-articles"). SOME of the changes to the Viking "invasion" section are a little clumsy and some fragments (like "The Vikings were expert sailors, who travelled in Longships") are a little childish, but otherwise it looks fine. If you disagree, I'd recommend you review that section specifically. The remaining changes (to the sections on the first Norman influences, Gaelic resurgence, and Tudor re-conquest) all seem to be simple summarisation. One or two wiki-links may have been lost, but these are easily restored if needed, and the content seems to be OK and not substantively changed. Again, can you try and identify any specific problems, and I'll chip in with a cleanup. (Instead of universally reverting to a 3 month old version). Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair, I didn't take enough time to see what had been lost. Let me look at it again. But actually the early modern section had been mutilated, subsumed into the the late medieval section (which continued up to 1800!) and all the links to the main articles that deal with 1500-1800 had been lost. Jdorney (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Jdorney (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The tricolor flag

This flag Republic of Ireland is not the flag of the whole island of Ireland, it's the flag of the Republic of Ireland. Northern Ireland's flag is the Union Jack United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As per my suggestion on other talk pages, why not say something like The national state flag of Ireland is a tricolour of...
It clarifies what it applies to without inaccurately changing the name.ThatsGrand (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
That would certainly be preferable to the current wording, which is factually incorrect. I fail to see, however, what the problem is in using Republic of Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that in some places it suggests that ROI is the name of the state which its not. Glad you think the edit is ok.ThatsGrand (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(Deindent) A suspected sock (same IP range) of User:ThatsGrand (a confirmed sock) has reverted changes by 3 separate editors today, pointing to the above discussion as "consensus" that the wording "the tricolour is the state flag of Ireland" is preferred to "the tricolour is the flag of the Republic of Ireland" as a means of ensuring the reader understands the jurisdictional scope of the national tricolour. There are three issues with this. (1) With WP:EVADE. (2) With WP:3RR. And (3) with WP:CON. I state the latter because the above consensus was not that "the state flag of Ireland" was preferred to the current wording. Rather that it was preferred to "the tricolour is the flag of Ireland" wording, where no qualifier was applied. While I would normally concede that "the state flag of Ireland" would be the ideal, in the context in question, clarity on the jurisdictional scope is of paramount importance to the meaning of the sentence/paragraph - given that it is explicitly comparing the jurisdictions in which the two flags are used in an officially capacity. (In the same way that - for example - absolute clarity is required when describing the jurisdiction in which the Union Flag is official. In short, the wording should leave no uncertainty/ambiguity as to the jurisdictional application of either emblem. And evading socks should sit out their ban instead of making matters worse.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with that. Mooretwin (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Where did this "state flag" OR come from? It's not Nevada that we are talking about. States have flags, islands don't. There is no risk of ambiguity. It may be an inconvenient fact to those who can't bear ambiguity, but the name of the state is Ireland. "Republic of" describes its constitutional arrangements, that it is the "Kingdom of" any more.--Red King (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As per my edit note, if the two governments can accept the other's statement of what its name is, why are some editors here trying to perpetuate a falsehood. The name of the state is Ireland, it has been so for over 70 years, it is accepted as such in the UN and EU. To say anything else is POV. --Red King (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
That is your POV and consensus is against you.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I for one am not trying to "perpetuate a falsehood". And - as an editor who values clarity/truth over political sensitivities - I am a little bothered by the suggestion that I am. In this case, the opposite is actually the case. The "some editors" in this case are in fact trying to ensure the facts/truth are clear. On the other hand however a SPA/sockpuppet/disruptive editor/vandal decided to push an agenda at the expense of clarity. The "state flag" wording that this editor came up with was (as you note yourself) both inaccurate and unclear. (Suggesting as it did that the emblem of a sovereign nation was some kind of subset of a whole - like the flag of Nevada always being flown beneath the stars and stripes). The current wording is the clearest distinction I can personally think of that ensures the emblems of both jurisdictions are not confused. Although if you can come up with something better, that'd be great. The whole point of this discussion was that WP:CON wasn't reached and the user in question kept edit warring at the expense of the mores of this project. If you do weigh in with an alternative wording however, keep clarity for the reader (rather than diplomatic mores) in mind. Compare for example how unclear or ambiguous it would be if the wording in the corresponding sentence on the Union Flag read something like: "The flag of Ulster is the Union Flag" or "The flag in the North of Ireland is the Union Flag". These are just as unnecessarily (and dangerously) ambiguous a wording - and don't ensure the reader understands PRECISELY the jurisdiction which officially flies the flag in question. Oh - and on the point that "Islands don't have flags". The whole point is that they do. Take this or this. In fact, the whole problem in this area (different flags for different jurisdictions) is precisely why the IRFU uses this.) In short: If the sentence just says "The flag of Ireland is the tricolour", then it's not clear enough that "Ireland" in this sense means the country. And not the island. Spelling out the country description was how this clarity has been conveyed on this page for some time. If you can consider another wording, that - as noted - would be great. Guliolopez (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ireland is the third largest island in Europe, and the twentieth- largest in Europe and is surrounded by hundreds of islands and islets. To the last of Ireland, seperated by the Irish sea, is the island of Great Britan. Politially, the state Ireland covers five-sixths of the Island, with part of the United Kingdom, covering the remainder in the northeast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

BC or BCE?

This article uses BCE in a heading and BC everywhere else. Which should we use to be consistent? --HighKing (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Going back to October, the history shows it was all BC/AD. Per policy, we should go back to that unless there is a concensus to change. I would favour keeping BC myself. I'll change the header in the meantime. I'm removing October's cleanup tag too, as there is nothing about it here & the article has no glaring issues I can see. Johnbod (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Sounds ok to me. I asked because it just seemed odd. More important to keep it consistent throughout. --HighKing (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Both Prehistoric Ireland and the Early History of Ireland pages use BCE and CE. Consistency wins over consensus to be multiculturally insensitive. D greenwald (talk) 06:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
You were asked on your Talk page to discuss edits of this kind on the article Talk page first. I've reverted your changes. --HighKing (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Look at this [1]. You'll see that User:Superfopp changed all the BC to BCE (completely against policy) in the Prehistoric Ireland article, and although I haven't checked, I bet a pound to a penny that he also changed Early History of Ireland. The answer here is to revert these articles and stick to BC/AD elsewhere. In some cases it doesn't make sense to use BC anyway, a more correct usage being "years ago" or similar words. LevenBoy (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I checked the history and you're sadly right, see [2] and [3]. I think I just lost a pound. Damnation, I should have known better than to bet against an Irish gambler (?). Flamarande (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Ha, ha! you're right. Anyway, it's euros/cents now. If you haven't already reverted the articles I'll do it now. Thanks a mill. LevenBoy (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

From time to time eager users unilaterally change whole articles from AD/BC towards BCE/CE (it may certainly also happen vice-versa). Their official reason is always the same: "they want a neutral dating-system". Being a proud atheist myself I can only shudder before such anti-Christian/western zealotry and propose the following: if you're truly interested in a neutral dating-system why don't you invent a new one (with a different zero event) instead of twisting the most popular calendar of the world along "political correct lines"? Flamarande (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

First-paragraph "settlement BC" vandalism

It reads "10 [billion] BC", which is obviously vandalism... but I don't know when the first settlements are known to have existed in Ireland, nor a source, so I can't replace it with something else.

I found a website with links at the bottom for sources which states humans have lived in Ireland since approximately 8000 BC.

But, I'm not sure if sources are appropriate when they source another, even if it is an existing book, so I don't know how to proceed. LeobenConoy (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting or ignoring history??

"The Iron Age in Ireland began about 600 BC. By the historic period (AD 431 onwards) the main over-kingdoms of In Tuisceart, Airgialla, Ulaid, Mide, Laigin, Mumhain, Cóiced Ol nEchmacht began to emerge (see Kingdoms of ancient Ireland). Within these kingdoms a rich culture flourished. The society of these kingdoms was dominated by an upper class, consisting of aristocratic warriors and learned people, possibly including druids."

So what happened between 600BC and 431AD that should be stated but isn't giving the impression that a certain people and their kingdoms must have evolved from the pre-Iron age Mesolithic and Neolithic peoples?? Thats right the migration/invasion of Celtic peoples along with the Gaels into Ireland. The arrival of the Vikings, Normans et. all is clearly mentioned but not the arrival of the Celts or Gaels? I'll fix this distortion later when i get my history books out and over-source it. Mabuska (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought modern historians/archaeologists are rather doubtful that any such migration/invasion took place? But the issue should be covered, using top-quality sourcing. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Not that i have heard of, and even if some historians are doubtful, it and any sourced doubts should be included. I have several top-quality sources for the section, though i must admit i do believe other Wikipedia articles have it clearly stated, so why its missing here i dunno. Mabuska (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
That is certainly not the impression one gets from Gaels or Celtic_people#Insular_Celts. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Im sure Oppenheimer mentions Gaelic being in Ireland since the first arrivals being a serious possibility (Id have to track down the passage again). In any case, the best source to find a substrata of any preceltic language in Ireland, would be in the Irish language. (I think the theory is that Insular Celtic languages may have been influenced by Phonoecian... something to do with the tridecimal counting system "tri fichead" instead of "sixty" . Theres a guy called Theo venneman who also has discussed this possibility. Seamusalba (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As it happens, the index to the volume 1 (Prehistoric and Early Ireland, ed. Ó Cróinín) of the Royal Irish Academy's A New History of Ireland has an entry for "migration". It says "see internal migration". Brian Raftery (he of Pagan Celtic Ireland: The Enigma of the Irish Iron Age) wrote the Iron Age chapter. It's not exactly filled to the brim with theories of migrations. Since this article is a broad summary, it should avoid giving undue weight to outdated and/or fringe theories. No Iron Age migrating pottery please. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I see. Looking through my own sources, there is a general concensus of a gradual (if minimal) influx of Celtic speaking peoples subjegating the native peoples with their cultures blending forming what would become Gaelic. How does the following sound to fill the gap??
The Iron Age in Ireland began about 600 BC. The period between the start of the Iron Age and the historic period (AD 431) saw the gradual infiltration of Celtic speaking people into Ireland[1], with items of the La Tene Celtic style having become established in Ireland by 300 BC [2][3]. The result of a gradual blending of Celtic and indigenous cultures would result in the emergence of Gaelic culture by the fifth century.[1][2] It is also during the fifth century that the main over-kingdoms of In Tuisceart, Airgialla, Ulaid, Mide, Laigin, Mumhain, Cóiced Ol nEchmacht began to emerge (see Kingdoms of ancient Ireland). Within these kingdoms a rich culture flourished. The society of these kingdoms was dominated by an upper class, consisting of aristocratic warriors and learned people, possibly including druids.
  1. ^ a b Jonathan Bardon, A History of Ulster, 2005, ISBN 0-85640-764-X
  2. ^ a b Sean Duffy, A Concise History of Ireland, 2005, ISBN 0-7171-3810-0
  3. ^ S.J. Connolly, Oxford Companion to Irish History, 2002, ISBN 978-0-19-923483-7
I don't think it sounds too radical, outdated or fringe, and its sourced with top-quality sources by respected historians (Bardon, Duffy) and institutions (Oxford). Any thoughts?? Mabuska (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd defer to Angus on that. Is it the 5th century BC or AD? AD I suppose, but needs clarifying. Given the widespread survival of older views, if the sources are confident there was no "mass" migration, it would be as well to say so. Personally I'd welcome a mention of the Roman trading station no one is supposed to know about, if that can be refed. Johnbod (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually doesn't the existing next bit cover it, except for the La Tene point, which could certainly be worked in?:

"Linguists realised from the 17th century onwards that the language spoken by these people, the Goidelic languages, was a branch of the Celtic languages. This was originally explained as a result of invasions by Celts from the continent. However, research during the 20th century indicated otherwise, and in the later years of the century the conclusion drawn was that culture developed gradually and continuously, and that the introduction of Celtic language and elements of Celtic culture was a result of cultural exchange with Celtic groups on South West continental Europe from the neolithic to the Bronze Age.[4] [5] Little archaeological evidence was found for large intrusive groups of Celtic immigrants in Ireland.

The hypothesis that the native Late Bronze Age inhabitants gradually absorbed Celtic influences has since been supported by some recent genetic research.[1]"

Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The tendecy of archaeologists to dismiss any idea of cultural or linguistic change taking place in this manner, or non-peacefully, is largely down to the influence of Postcolonialist ideology about the innocence of pre-modern people and the foreignness of violence to human beings. Such thinking seems to be on the retreat ,and:: judging from the Rafferty article, the intrusion of Celtic in Ireland is still attributed to some kind of fol-movement. Incidentally I've always found the idea that Celtic came to Ireland from "south-west Europe" one of the more amusing ideas of early Irish history as. I seriously hope no salaried archaeologist believes this.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that next section you've stated compliments the changed preceding paragraph i provided above, declaring the change in historian perception towards the "Celticifcation" of Ireland, if you could call it that. The problem with that next bit is that while it is now being commonly agreed that there wasn't a large-scale migration or invasion, the same sources i've stated above do also say instead it was more likely small bands of Celtic cultured people who came to these shores, who gradually became assimilated with the end result being Gaelic culture - whilst it does say "cultural exchange" it leaves out remarks to anykind of inward intrusion, which would be hard to believe, seeing as immigration in whatever form is a constant that has affected every land in the world throughout history.
I already know of the genetic studies pertaken and their initial results, however they have problems such as limited sampling. The links used in the end of that section is also dubious: the y-chromosone census PDF used as a source above only states that 2 locations in Ireland where sampled for it, this can't be taken as reliable enough for a 'top quality' source. Two of the other sources used don't even exist anymore, and the author of the only other one used that still works does his best to disprove the genetic results - in regards to England anyways. So i have to say that without extra top-quality sources, that last sentence/paragraph needs reworking as its now either unsourced or dubiously sourced. For the time being i'll delete the 2 non-working links.
The Roman outpost, which i have partially heard of, should be included as it is an important piece of information against the commonly held myth that the Romans never set foot on Ireland.
Mabuska (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ive never heard of this "commonly held myth". Setting foot and conquering are not the same thing. If immigration/migration has occured everywhere throughout history, why would that make Gaelic less indigenous? (particularly if it was small scale) Seamusalba (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because you have never heard of it doesn't mean that it isn't commonly held, maybe its only held here in Ireland. Who said that immigration/migration made Gaelic any less indigenous?? If you read my proposed alteration of the section above you'll see that nowhere does it say that either. Here it is again if you missed it:
The Iron Age in Ireland began about 600 BC. The period between the start of the Iron Age and the historic period (AD 431) saw the gradual infiltration of Celtic speaking people into Ireland[1], with items of the La Tene Celtic style having become established in Ireland by 300 BC [2][3]. The result of a gradual blending of Celtic and indigenous cultures would result in the emergence of Gaelic culture by the fifth century.[1][2] It is also during the fifth century that the main over-kingdoms of In Tuisceart, Airgialla, Ulaid, Mide, Laigin, Mumhain, Cóiced Ol nEchmacht began to emerge (see Kingdoms of ancient Ireland). Within these kingdoms a rich culture flourished. The society of these kingdoms was dominated by an upper class, consisting of aristocratic warriors and learned people, possibly including druids.
  1. ^ a b Jonathan Bardon, A History of Ulster, 2005, ISBN 0-85640-764-X
  2. ^ a b Sean Duffy, A Concise History of Ireland, 2005, ISBN 0-7171-3810-0
  3. ^ S.J. Connolly, Oxford Companion to Irish History, 2002, ISBN 978-0-19-923483-7
Whats you thoughts on it? Does the additions to it adequately bridge the time-gap between the start of the Iron Age (600BC) and the historical period (AD 431)?? Though whoever added the last line in it should of added a source for it. Mabuska (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Its the subtext I was referring to. I had a sense of deja-vous. Seamusalba (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as there is no arguement against the proposed additions and they are sourced with top-quality references as Johnbod asked, i'm adding them into the article. Any alterations to it i'll be happy to discuss here. Mabuska (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The final three sentences don't have references. The last two I think are uncontroversial, the third last is problematic. Modern historians of the period rather doubt that there was great continuity with the pre-Christian past where the political landscape is concerned. Even the continuity that there was - the fifths of Connacht, Leinster, Munster and Ulster seem to be presumed to have old roots - is misleading in that the extent and rulership of these regions changed a great deal. I'd suggest dropping that sentence. My objections to putative Celtic infiltration and migrating La Tène metalwork are as before. This is material which cannot be covered here due to the complexity of the matter and the conflicting interpretations. The same is true of Roman influences. This is not the place for endless "on the one hand; on the other hand" stuff. And with respect, the references proposed are not ideal for this period. The opinions on this era of Irish history should come from archaeologists, not from historians dashing off some introductory padding for their potted history. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Irish history series

Arising out of a discussion at Talk:Gaelic Ireland and Talk:Ireland 800–1169, I'd like to request some comment on the current set of (main) articles relating to the history of Ireland. I'm posting here as a central location for discussion for all interested in this subject. The current set are as follows (I may have missed some):

Is there scope here for mergers? Renamings?

My 2¢ are as follows::

If so the entire series would be:

  • Prehistoric Ireland
  • Gaelic Ireland
  • Viking Ireland
  • Lordship of Ireland (redirect from Norman Ireland)
  • Kingdom of Ireland
  • United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
  • History of the Republic of Ireland
  • History of Northern Ireland

--RA (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with most of what Rannpháirtí has written. However, I think that good histories always make dramatic use of pivotal moments. These breakpoints define the difference between what went before and the changed landscape thereafter. I think that the Treaty of Limerick is one such pivot point. It marks the absolute, complete and permanent defeat of native rulers by English rulers. Nothing would ever be the same again. I would therefore recommend the following split of the Kingdom of Ireland
  • Kingdom of Ireland (up to the Treaty of Limerick)
  • Kingdom of Ireland (from the Treaty of Limerick) Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right. Having one article spanning the entirety of the Kingdom of Ireland would be artificial. There's an enormous difference between pre- and post- Limerick. From another perspective, however, I wouldn't like to delete the Kingdom article and have it split a across two articles. I think it's important from the perspective of other topics to have specific articles dealing with the various Irish states (even though it historically naive to think in those terms with respect to Ireland).
On reflection too, I'm having second thoughts about conflating Norman Ireland and the article on the Lordship of Ireland for the similar reasons.
So, would the following be OK:
--RA (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
i'd say your best bet to get the changes you want to take place is to create the pages as subpages under your username with the articles as you think they should be and then ask for feedback. Good luck, aineolach 11:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aineolach (talkcontribs)
Yip. If I got a general OK on the series from a top level, I'd do that. --RA (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)For one editor to organise the whole subset of articles related to Irish history might be the "best bet" to actually get some changes implemented, but hardly "democratic" or an undertaking one should expect one single editor to take responsibilty for (pluss I don't think any single editor has sufficient knowledge of all the various periods).
I think what we need to do as a first step is to try to identify how an article-suite regarding the history of Ireland should ideally be organised (in essence: what should be linked from {{History of Ireland}}, and then as a second step see how the current articles could fit into such a scheme. Some thoughts:
  1. The main subdivision should remain chronological (and not thematic). There should be articles on Ireland before AD 400 , Ireland 400-800 and Ireland 800-1169. These periodic divisions are used in all scholarly literature I know. I would assume relevant chronological divisions could be made for later Irish history as well - probably following the various forms of government as outlined above. See also Category:History of Ireland by period.
  2. In parallell to the chronological division, there could be thematic articles like Gaelic Ireland, Viking Ireland (I'd preferr "Norse Ireland" but I guess that's a lost cause ;) and Norman Ireland. These articles could also be linked to one or several chronological periods, but have a clearly defined scope of a certain aspect with Irish politics/society.
  3. There's also a need for specialised historical articles like History of the Irish language, Economic history of Ireland and "Church History of Ireland" (currently Christianity_in_Ireland#History and History of Roman Catholicism in Ireland) and probably several more as well.
  4. A fourth "level" is the history of various geographical subdivisions, present or historical. Category:History of Ireland by location and a lot of Kingdoms or similar in Category:Medieval_Ireland. This level may be outside the scope of this discussion though.
It might be wise to stick to names like Ireland 800–1169 for the chronolocal divisions - names like the current Early history of Ireland is misleading, and based on the history of the article (and whatever has been merged before - formerly known as "Early Christian Ireland" and "Golden Age of Ireland) finding relevant and consistent names for historical periods is somewhat problematic. I would expect finding consensus for names of periods in more modern Irish history to be even more troublesome... Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Add after edit conflict: If there would be a general consensus here, and RA would undertake the job of reorganising - I would be more than grateful to them for that ;) Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me how Finnrind's Chronological and Thematic approached would link or even if they link at all. Could they be parallel workstreams? Would they just be linked by "See also" sections? Where a theme covered two chronological periods, would the data from the chronolgical articles be largely duplicated in the themed articles? Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I think they already exist in some ways for the period since 1536 e.g. we have Kingdom of Ireland while at the same time Ireland (1536–1691) and Ireland (1691–1801). We also have United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Ireland (1801–1922).
If I understand Finnrind correctly, it is that for the period immediately before the above, we would articles on Gaelic Ireland, Norman Ireland and the Lordship of Ireland, as "thematic" articles that overlap in period and with blurry edges. These "themes" could be complemented with an article on Ireland (1169-1536), for example, that would bind the three "work streams" (I like that idea) together. The earlier period could have Gaelic Ireland complimented by articles such as Ireland (431-795) and Ireland (795-1169). The latter of these could be complimented a thematic article on Viking Ireland. Before then, presumably, we would have Prehistoric Ireland and related articles.
In compliment to these, of course there could be specific articles, such as Surrender and regrant, just for example, and very broad articles such as History of the Irish language would stay as they are. --RA (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Would you believe, ec with RA again... First my original answer to LL:
The one presently working (IMO) example would be the article Gaelic Ireland spanning the same chronological frame as five (six) articles presently chronologically covering Prehistory -> 1607. Gaelic Ireland doesn't attempt to tell the whole story though, but focuses on the spesific Gaelic society/political order of this period. Note that one user is arguing that this isn't presently working at Talk:Gaelic_Ireland#Merger_of_Early_history_of_Ireland_and_Gaelic_Ireland.
@RA, yes - if I understand you correctly you understood me correctly... Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
First of all, I really like Finn's idea of different "levels", where articles on one level would all have the title "Ireland xxxx – yyyy" and articles such as "Gaelic Ireland" could span, or overlap, two or more periods. However, I would prefer if the "chronological" articles were named "History of Ireland xxxx – yyyy", as some of them were until fairly recently. I also, like Finn, prefer "Norse Ireland" to "Viking Ireland" (even if many of the "Norse" were actually Danes). That would give us something like:
  • History of Ireland to 431
  • History of Ireland 431 - 795
  • History of Ireland 795 - 1169
  • History of Ireland 1169 - 1536
  • History of Ireland 1536 - 1691
  • History of Ireland 1691 - 1801
  • History of Ireland 1801 - 1922
  • History of the Republic of Ireland
  • History of Northern Ireland
  • Gaelic Ireland
  • Norse Ireland
  • Norman Ireland
  • Kingdom of Ireland
  • ± United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (see Below)
I agree with RA about the strange bias of the "United Kingdom" article. History of the United Kingdom#19th century has a {{main|United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland}} tag, but in fact that section is both longer and far more comprehensive than United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. There are, then, three ways that could be dealt with:
  1. Merge UKGBI into Ireland 1801-1922, and let the 19th century section of the History of the UK article deal with UKGBI,
  2. Partially merge the 19th Century section (and part of the 20th) into the UKGBI article, or
  3. Completely merge the 19th Century section and start of 20th into the UKGBI article, replacing it in the H of UK article with an abbreviated version.
To me the last would be the most logical, but we'd want to run it by UKWNB first.
How does any of that sound? Scolaire (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I would like to make a few comments and suggestions. While Norse sounds more scholarly than Viking, the latter is more identifiable to readers; therefore Viking Ireland is preferable. I notice the section Medieval Ireland is lacking. Norman Ireland looks good, but the Kingdom of Ireland existed since Gaelic times, albeit having had more than one kingdom. How about a section Ireland under the Tudors? This would deal with the period of Tudor rule (1485- 1603).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Scolaire's suggestion on the names on the "chronology" articles.
I'd suggest we invite comment from WikiProject UK before we do anything rash on the matter of UKGBI. It is a useful article to have in some circumstances and I'd be sorry to see it go. See for example how the info box at the Tom Crean (explorer) uses it. The more straight forward alternative to having a separate UKGBI would be to redirect United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to United Kingdom since the UK today is the same entity as the UKGBI, merely with a territory altered in 1922 a name that was amended five years later. That would have consequences for many articles where contributors would me unhappy about linking to the "present-day" UK in matters relating to people and places from the present-day Republic of Ireland. For that reason I suggest option 2 or 3 would better.
I'd also suggest leaving Lordship of Ireland too, for similar reasons, as it is a part of a series of articles dealing with Irish states.
I agree with Jeanne's point that while "Norse" sounds more scholarly, "Viking" is more common. "Medieval Ireland", however, would be a strange thing: when is that, who is that, where is that? The Kingdom of Ireland being referred to is the 1536 Tudor construction. Ireland under the Tudors, itself is covered in the Tudor reconquest of Ireland. I notice that Tudor Ireland redirects to Kingdom of Ireland. That really isn't right since that kingdom lasted for two hundred years after the tudor dynasty. I suggest that redirect be changed to point at the article on the reconquest.--RA (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
How about Ireland under the Tudors and Stuarts? We could have a sub-section on Cromwell and the English Civil War. There should really be a section on him seeing as he had such a catalystic effect on Irish history.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The marriage of Aoife of Leinster and Richard de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke
Street off the Shankill Road, Belfast, 1970
What about including these images in the article?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The period you're referring to (Tudors, Stuarts, Flight of the Earls, Plantation of Ulster, Cromwell, Penal Laws, Glorious Revolution/Revolution of 1688, establishment of the Protestant Ascendency, etc.) is recounted in the single article, Ireland (1536–1691). Certainly it is one period that should be recounted on one page of its own, but I don't think there is a common name for the period as a whole.
The first image you've linked to depicts an event that happend 300 years before the Tudors/Stuarts (1169) and was painted 200 years after them (mid-19th century). The second image you link to depicts a scene that happened 300 years after the Tudors/Stuarts. I don't think either of them should be included in the article. --RA (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I had meant to include them in the main article: History of Ireland, not the Tudor period, as I'm well aware neither one dates from the Tudor or Stuart eras.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The first image would fit well into Norman Ireland and the second, History of Northern Ireland.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
LOL! You had me scratching my head there, Jeanne ... sorry!
At one time I added the Aoife and Strongbow image to Norman invasion of Ireland. It was removed on the basis that it was a romanticised depictions painted nearly a millennium after the fact (it was for the British Houses of Parliament IIRC). I didn't argue against its removal. I suppose it should come with a health warning in the caption at least. --RA (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Judging from the painting (despite it having been painted in the 19th century), the wedding of Strongbow and Aoife had to have been the social event of the 12th century! Those in the front have imbibed themselves into a drunken stupor, whereas the folks on the hill appear to be half-naked and having an orgy. Woodstock and Altamont paled in comparison, and people probably bartered their castles to get an invitation!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Re Scolaire above: Agree completely on History of Ireland xxx(x)-yyy(y), I'm not sure if we should use "detailed" years like 431 and 795 though (1169 makes more sense). 400 / 800 are used in scholarly literature, cf. table of contents. I also think we should keep the name "Prehistory" for the time before 400/431.
As for Norse vs Viking Ireland, that article doesn't excist yet and I guess the name will depend on the emphasis: If it's an article primary concerned with the Viking raids and first settlements (795- c.950) then "Viking Ireland", if it's primary concern is the development of (Hiberno-)Norse settlements/cities and the Norse influence on Irish history then "Norse Ireland". If it's both (as I think it should be), then I grudgingly consent to "Viking Ireland" per Common name... Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Err, I just discovered that we do have an article about Viking/Norse Ireland, and a very good one at that: Early Scandinavian Dublin. Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree it's good, but the name Scandinavian is too broad; perhaps it should be changed to Early Norse Dublin, seeing as the Vikings were primarily Norwegian and Danish in origin. Scandinavian implies Swedes and Finns were also present in Dublin.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, Norse includes Swedes as well "(Norsemen, the Scandinavian people before the Christianization of Scandinavia)", while the only Finns included in Scandinavia are Finns like myself - despite what Wikipedia calls "common English usage" ;) Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Scandinavia would be fine for a geographic article, but I think Norse sounds more in keeping with an historical article on Viking Dublin. I have only heard the two words, Norse and Viking describe Dublin during the period this article is covering, never Scandinavia; notwithstanding the Vikings did originate in the Scandinavian penisula.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, and I have already posted a suggestion concerning renaming on that articles talkpage. Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Norse would be better even than "Scandinavian". Dublin was a part of the Norse world for a time, but I cannot imagine it ever being a part of Scandinavia.
"400-800" seems fine also. I suppose I was over-enthusiastic proposing "precise" dates for that time.--RA (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Me too. My excuse is I was just following RA ;-) Scolaire (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Reading through this, have we forgotten that we are an island nation? ClemMcGann (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you're actually saying. Perhaps you could make some suggestions as to what would be different if people hadn't "forgotten that we are an island nation". aineolach (u · d · c) 15:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Prehistory and protohistory

I've begun revamping Prehistoric Ireland and I think that the prehistory and protohistory articles would be better if they're not merged. However, I don't believe that the protohistory should be listed in the chronological series but should be seen more of a specialized article. aineolach (u · d) 05:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a sensible solution, keep up the good work! Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the protohistory from the chronology series and have mentioned it in the Iron Age section of the Prehistoric Ireland article (just one line, I may add a couple of lines when I get around to expanding the Iron Age section). aineolach (u · d) 12:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. --RA (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Updated template

Arising from the above, I have updated {{History of Ireland}} incorporatig the "chronology" and "thematic" (peoples and states) streams. It now runs:

Topical subjects, such as Irish language are in there also.

Please note the red link for Ireland 1169–1536. I'll start something either tonight or tomorrow but help from others to fill this gap in the "chronology stream" would be appreciated. --RA (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That's excellent RA - can't wait to see what you produce. aineolach (u · d · c) 15:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Please also note that Viking Ireland is a redirect to Ireland 800–1169, just as 1169–1536 was a redirect to Norman Ireland in the previous version of the template. Scolaire (talk) 07:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Irish history series 2

This is kind of a follow-on from Talk:Ireland 800–1169, and specifically the 800-1169/1200? section. If we are to have two separate streams, and if the second stream is to be delimited by very precise dates such as 1169, 1536, 1691 and 1922, then it seems to me that the "chronological" stream should have rounded-off dates. As I said on the other page, nothing in Ireland ended in 1169 - life went on, though for some people with a new reality of armoured knights etc. Likewise, when Henry VIII called himself "King of Ireland" everybody didn't die, culture and society didn't come to an end.

A second question, which (again kind of) follows from the first, is why should there not be a History of Ireland 1900-2010? Such a history is taught in the universities, and written about in works such as A New History of Ireland. North and South had a common history of poverty, unemployment, literary censorship, religious devotion etc. and a different but parallel experience of things like the Second World War.

What I'm suggesting, therefore is:

Scolaire (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree about "rounding" dates but you are quite right that nothing ended in 1169. Life did go on. It also went on in 1200. And 1300. And on 4th of October 1483 at 5:42 in the morning (to pick a time out of air). 1200 is an arbitrary date. The only reason you would choose it is because it is closest centenary to 1169. Same with every other date along the line. 1169 is the significant year, not 1200.
With respect to a recent history of Ireland (History of Ireland 1923-?), I totally agree. I was thinking the same thing. --RA (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The question is, why have a "History of Ireland 1169-1536" and a "Lordship of Ireland 1169-1536"? Is there any significant difference between the two? There is always a choice between a significant date (and why not 1166, the year of Diarmait's overthrow, or 1167, the year of the landing of the first Normans, or 1171, the year of Henry's arrival?) and an arbitrary cutoff with a 00 in it. If you read the discussion I linked to, you'll see that already there is a proposal to deal with the 1172 Synod of Cashel and the last years of Ruaidrí's reign, both post-1169 topics, in the ""800-1169" article. So is there any point in having this one-significant-year cutoff? I'm saying, if we are to have two streams running together, let one be "significant date"-driven and the other be by century. Scolaire (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I see. It's a fair point and I don't think we should have to stick religiously with the "cut off" dates for any article. Still my point is that no matter what date we pick there's going to be stuff that's relevant to appreciating that article that happened a bit after the 'end date' (maybe even a good bit). Same with stuff that happened before the 'start date'. When we say, "1169" (or "1801" or "1922"), its a line drawn as a 'chapter', not a line drawn that we may not cross if it relevant to telling that 'chapter'. Like Finn Rindahl says on that talk page, 1169 is just a standard date of division between 'chapters' (same with 1801 and 1922). Life didn't change on the 1st of January 1801, for examples, but 1801 is still a better cut of that 1800 because of what that date signifies. Ditto for 1169.
About the difference between Lordship of Ireland and what Ireland 1169–1536 may look like, I expect it is that the Lordship, in any real sense, only covered part of Ireland for a part of that time. There was more stuff going on, in both Gaelic Ireland and Gaelicised Norman/English Ireland. --RA (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
There may have been "stuff going on", but it doesn't form an awfully large part of what we call Irish History. In fact, I'd be hard put to think of more than a couple of books that deal in any depth with Gaelic or Gaelicised Ireland in this period, other than their relationships with the English-controlled part of the country. No doubt that's an undesirable state of affairs, but it's not on Wikipedia that it's going to be remedied. Bear in mind that in the "Lordship" article at the moment, there is a grand total of 400 words dealing with the subject itself (compared to 500 words on backgound, including Laudabiliter, and change into kingdom). It leaves me still wondering how a "History" article, written from scratch, is going to be a completely different animal.
Just another point about 1200. Something did end then: the century. The century is an essential unit in chronology. Anything you write about the country prior to 1200 relates to 12th century Ireland; anything about the years after 1200 does not. 1171 (or maybe 1177) and 1541 mark the beginning and end of a political entity known as the Lordship of Ireland, but not of anything else remotely homogeneous. As far as the country and the people are concerned the Battle of Kinsale - straying just over the border from a 1600 cutoff - was far more momentous than Henry's change of title. Both the wars of Henry and the wars of Elizabeth were 16th century wars, and they relate to each other more closely than either of them do to, say, the Cromwellian wars. I just feel that if we are going to work on a custom-designed, two-stream history series, we need to begin to think outside the box. Scolaire (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
"... the Battle of Kinsale - straying just over the border from a 1600 cutoff - was far more momentous than Henry's change of title ... I just feel that if we are going to work on a custom-designed, two-stream history series, we need to begin to think outside the box." - Yes, that I can buy into. 1536 is a balls of a number to pick. 1601 would be better. And maybe 1798 (or 1829?) would be more preferable to 1801. And 1919 instead of 1922 (why is it '23 at the minute, BTW?). I definitely buy into that. That would be really good. It's just that 1200 is an arbitary year (as 1600, or 1800, or 1900 would be). I think it would be great to seperate out the "streams" but can we pick meaningful beginnings and ends to the 'chapters' (which is effecitvely what they are) instead of just round ones? --RA (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
You love my dates but you still think my reasoning is rubbish! What do I have to do? (tears hair in exasperation). This depite the fact that I have shown that 1169 is just one of a range of dates - 1166, 1167, 1169, 1171, 1177 - when a particular 'chapter' may be said to have begun, and not even necessarily the best choice at that. Your contention is that nothing significant happened around 1200. I disagree. 1194-7: Norman advances into Munster, culminating in Limerick getting a royal charter in 1197; 1200-05: Cathal Crobderg installed as a puppet king in Connacht, now controlled by the Normans; 1199-1200: Normans repulsed in Tír Eoghain. In other words, the period around 1200 marks the end of the "Norman invasion". Next time John comes to Ireland, in 1210, it's to campaign against Normans, not Gaels. The campaigns of Edward I mark the beginning of English expansion. So there's your 'chapter' end. All 'chapters' are the creation of writers. History itself is seamless. All years, including 1169, are arbitrary, but centuries are not. Twelfth century Irish history can be put beside twelfth century British history (Henry I to Henry II) and twelfth century European history (the age of the Cistercians). If you were curious about sixteenth century Transylvania (and sixteenth century Transylvania is interesting), would you first check what the nearest 'significant' date was, in case you read something that didn't belong in the 'chapter'? I don't imagine so. Scolaire (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
"You love my dates but you still think my reasoning is rubbish! What do I have to do?" Read again. It is the very opposite. I love your reasoning but I think your dates are "rubbish" :-) Any of the dates you give (1166, 1167, 1169, 1171, 1177...) would be good, but 1200 is only significant to the degree that it is a number ending in two zeros.
If you want to start an article on 13th century in Ireland, do so (compare with 13th century in Wales).
"If you were curious about sixteenth century Transylvania (and sixteenth century Transylvania is interesting), would you first check what the nearest 'significant' date was, in case you read something that didn't belong in the 'chapter'? I don't imagine so." I don't know what you mean by this. --RA (talk) 08:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Sixteenth century Transylvania is interesting. Its experience of the Reformation, in particular its tradition of religious tolerance, was unique in Europe. But it's those facts, and the time period, that interest me. I can't remember, and I wouldn't thank you for telling me, what year the Reformation came to Transylvania, or what year the Edict of Turda was promulgated. That's all I meant by that. I chose Transylvania because it's a place where we're not culturally conditioned by 'significant' events and dates like the Peace of Augsburg 1555, the Edict of Nantes 1598 or the Acts of Supremacy 1534. Scolaire (talk) 09:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

(indent)I'm not sure what my conclusion on this would be, each solution has its merits. Where to end an old/begin a new "chapter" does imply some kind of interpretation of history, and is therefor an important question.

  • pro current: Following the standard interpretation is the obvious solution - and a "new" kind of division might even be some kind of "Original Research".
  • pro current: Even if c. 1169 wasn't the end of anything, it certainly was a beginning (much more so than 795). Ireland looked very differently in 1180 than it did in 1160.
  • pro century: Any detailed division implies an interpretation, also an established. It may be better to chose "neutral" dividers and allow the reader to make her own interpretations.
  • pro century:With century dividers it may be easier for both writers and readers to remember that a "period" in history has neither a beginning or an end. Any period is a continuation of what had been/happened before, and whatever came to be during that period would influence the coming periods.
  • pro century:66? 67? 69? 71? 77?

Finn Rindahl (talk) 09:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that summary, Finn. It sums up the discussion very nicely. I would like to make it clear that I'm not issuing any ultimatum here, just throwing the idea out for discussion. It's a ball that I might pick up and run with weeks or months from now, or it might die a natural death. In fact, I am now going to suggest something that would necessarily involve preserving the status quo in the short term. Scolaire (talk) 09:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

An alternative proposal

Norman Ireland does not discuss Hiberno-Norman institutions, culture etc. in the way that Gaelic Ireland does for the Gaels. It is, in fact, a history of Ireland from 1169 to 1536. It is currently tagged for a possible merge into "Lordship of Ireland". I propose that, instead, it be moved to History of Ireland 1169–1536. This will fill the gap in the chronological series. It would also be an opportunity to move the other chronological articles to "History of Ireland..." Norman Ireland could be recreated at a later date as a more specific article or, alternatively, Hiberno-Norman could be expanded and renamed. Scolaire (talk) 10:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a very sensible suggestion, I'll support that (Inluding moving the rest to "History of..."). Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Norman IrelandIreland 1169–1536? Then reformat the whole series to History of Ireland yyyy-YYYY? I'm happy with that. Sounds good. Same as what happens with Viking Ireland right now.
Would we also remove Viking Ireland and Norman Ireland from the "states" stream? There's no point in having redirects in the template IMHO. --RA (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we should. Creating/recreating the two would be a worthwhile medium term project, but until then they shouldn't be on the template. Scolaire (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've done the moves, dealt with the double redirects, removed the merge tags, edited the template. If I've missed anything please go ahead and fix it. Scolaire (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it's much better, inclusive and historically accurate to put all these articles in that form History of Ireland yyyy-YYYY. The idea that articles on Ireland should have titles named after English monarchs - e.g. 'Elizabethan Ireland', 'Ireland under the Stuarts' etc - is, at best, an ignorant attempt to place Ireland and Irish history within a British framework. More likely, it is politically motivated. As if all the Irish were 'Elizabethan' because she was on the English throne. Putting it in year form avoids such political agendas and is infinitely more accurate. Dunlavin Green (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. I have seen academic books about Ireland under the Tudors, Yorkist Ireland, Norman Ireland, etc. It's a historical fact that the Anglo-Norman aristocracy was heavily intermarried with the Irish. Just take a look at the Fitzgeralds and the Butlers, not to mention Art MacMurrough and his Anglo-Norman consort. The marriage of Strongbow and Aoife MacMurrough set a precedent for many such marriages in Ireland following the Norman invasion, so that the lines between native Irish (as in Celtic and pre-Celtic Irish) and the Normans became so blurred that the English kings attempted to pass the absurd and largely ignored Statutes of Kilkenny. If one studies the genealogy of many English nobles including the some of the monarchs one finds a direct maternal line going back to Aoife MacMurrough. In point of fact most Irish supported King Charles during the English Civil War and two centuries prior to that were adherents of the Yorkist faction.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with what seems to me a politically charged and motivated statement. Ireland can be easily put in a British historical framework as a lot of its history has been intertwined with British history and part of its history still is as Northern Ireland is British territory. 'Elizabethan Ireland' describes Ireland under Queen Elizabeth I, the political ruler of Ireland at the time. The same for the Stuarts etc. As each monarch or royal dynasty had different agendas with, and different effects on this part of their domain their is no political agendas being served as it puts Ireland within specific time-frames that people can relate to better than just plain old 'characterless' dates. Also it doesn't assume or state that all Irish were or felt Elizabethan - it just states a period of Ireland under one of its rulers. Mabuska (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The only politics here is by the people who are trying to shove thousands of years of Irish history into a modern-day British nationalist framework. Ireland can "easily" be placed in a British framework if, like the British nationalist historian Steven G. Ellis, you overlook everything which doesn't fit into your agenda - which in Ireland's case is most things. Your notion is patently absurd and displays, at best, a profoundly anglocentric view of Irish history. It was only 1603, after Elizabeth had died, that the English started to rule over the entire country. What, therefore, was "Elizabethan Ireland"? What, and who, was included in it? If you really believe she was "the ruler of Ireland" you're going to have huge difficulties explaining why the most expensive wars of her reign were fought against the native Irish for, well, the vast majority of the 44 years she claimed to rule Ireland. Given that the vast, vast majority of the island's population spoke Irish and lived under Irish law your attempts to place this country within the framework of an English monarch is patently a political project. Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Source: Seán Duffy, Atlas of Irish History, ISBN 978-0-7171-3093-1, page 57 - "Elizabethan Ireland", same for his Concise History of Ireland, ISBN 0-7171-3810-0, page 99. Hes not an Anglocentric historian. David Ross, Ireland: History of a Nation, ISBN 1-84205-164-4, page 127, entire section labelled as "Elizabethan Ireland". David Ross's book is definately not very Anglocentric. I suppose actual historians are wrong. Fair enough. And Elizabeth was ruler of Ireland, just because she may not have controlled all of it it doesn't make her not ruler of Ireland. The kings of France were still regarded as kings of all of France even when the Anglo-Normans controlled most of France. She still ruled over most of Ireland with the real trouble being Ulster - but it doesn't matter if the subjects spoke Gaelic and had Gaelic customs, many still swore alligeance to her as did many Gaelic chieftains before them to her pre-deccessors - just as the Normans ruled England even though they spoke Norman-French, had French customs, cared more about their French territories, when the majority of the English population were of Anglo-Saxon stock. Also i suppose the Surrender and Regrants under Elizabeth which was accepted by Ulster chieftains such as Hugh O'Neill which meant they swore fealty to Elizabeth as their queen before they rebelled didn't happen either then or give Elizabeth status as regent of Ireland. Even the High Kings of Ireland never had control of all of Ireland but were still regarded as kings of Ireland. Mabuska (talk) 11:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh and please don't accuse people here of being politically motivated and Anglocentric for going by historical convention and fact, especially when looking at your past comments on other articles, you seem to be the person calling people anti-Irish amongst other things just because the island of Ireland falls into the British Isles etc. Wikipedia works on sourced facts not individuals personal beliefs and POVs. Mabuska (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The most important fact about the above is your own politics: you are, according to your User Page, a British loyalist in the northeast of Ireland, as if to prove my point. Now, for the rest.
  • 1. When Duffy used the term 'Elizabethan Ireland' he was referring to the English colonial community in Ireland, a small colonial minority, specifically in The Pale. He was not referring to all the people in Ireland. There is, whether you are willing to accept it or not, an enormous difference. You, and people who share your politics, want to force all of Ireland into your British colonial framework of the Irish as a "British" community. That is, patently, ahistorical.
  • 2. David Ross most certainly is anglocentric and on the British nationalist side of things, that is if he's the same David Ross who wrote those books on the Celts in some place he termed the "British Isles".
  • 3. It is not "historical convention" to place all of Irish history between the years 1558 and 1603 under the term "Elizabethan Ireland" or indeed the period 1485-1603 under the term "Tudor Ireland". Do you have a source for this? It may be "convention" (in some quarters) to place the (small) English colonial in Ireland under these terms, but that is a far cry from shoving the whole country under it. For one who professes to be aware of distinctions, you're not displaying much.
  • 4. Surrender and Regrant happened under Conn Ó Néill (1480 - 1559) in 1542 following St Leger's invasion of Tir Eoghain. Aodh Mór Ó Néill (1550 - 1616) was a different person, by the way. At any rate, if you know of a single historian who contends surrender and regrant was something more than a temporary arrangement in the eyes of the Irish lords, perhaps you could name him/her? The consequences for your claim are ironic: the Gaelic Irish, in your view, seem to have developed an international political worldview by seemingly giving lifelong support to English claims over Ireland in the Kingship Act, when every historian to date would contend that Gaelic-Irish political choices were shaped by short-term local concerns and they possessed no political conception of the modern nation state never mind some international Tudor state. But well done.
  • 5. There is no universal view from "actual historians" on the term 'Elizabethan Ireland' other than it is not applied to the entire country and the entire population by any serious historian. If you read a bit further you would see many of them place 'Elizabethan' in inverted commas when it precedes the word Ireland, such as this (Patricia Palmer, p. 4). Different terms are used for different contexts but it is contrived in the extreme to claim Brían Óg mac Dómhnaill mac Airt Ó Dóchartaigh from Tír Chónaill was an Irish "Elizabethan" (as "Elizabethan" as Edward Moore of Kent, for instance) and living in some place you are calling "Elizabethan Ireland". You are trying to distort the established historical reality, the actual facts, in sixteenth-century Ireland just to fit into some neat modern anglocentric ideology. Dunlavin Green (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Dunlavin Green, all of this is passionate territory, but I think you are getting close to personal attack here. Please assume good faith and debate the ideas being raised, not the people raising them. Please focus on the improvement of the article. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
It's a pity that Dunlavin Green added the unfortunate 'you and your like' remarks, since his substantive points make a great deal of sense and merit serious consideration. It is true that 'Viking Ireland' is really Viking Dublin and Viking Waterford and nothing more. It is true that 'Tudor Ireland' and 'Elizabethan Ireland' were really Tudor Dublin and Elizabethan Dublin until the Flight of the Earls and perhaps not even then. --Red King (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)