Jump to content

Talk:Hugh Roe O'Donnell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image of O'Donnell

[edit]

I've removed the highly problematic image of O'Donnell from the infobox. In addition to looking like something found on the cover of a period romance novel, the image info indicated that it was created by Gavigan 01 (talk · contribs) and would seem to constitute speculation/original research on O'Donnell's appearance. Dppowell (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is a problematic image. We are not even sure if the term 'Rua' (Red) referred to his hair or to his complexion and the clothing is more authentically Disney than C16 Irish. However it would be a pity to have no pictorial content whatsoever. If someone has an image of the monument to the Battle of the Curlew mountains which depicts an abstract image of O'Donnell, perhaps that might be appropriate? Also a plaque was recently unveiled near the site of his grave in Valladolid. An image of that would be most welcome. O'Donnell is a prominent enough character to merit a few more illustrations methinks. ANB (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's stuck it back in (& I think we're being awfully polite about it "seeming" to constitute original research...)FlaviaR (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Yes. The image certainly creates a credibility problem, but it is 'festive', I'll give it that. Gay, even. Fast Rita (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meow!! (Not that I disagree w/you....) FlaviaR (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the romanticised image of O'Donnell in the infobox with a photo of the modern abstract sculpture celebrating his victory at the Curlew Mountains. Its not terribly exciting, but in the absence of any surviving contemporary depiction of him (pity), I think its the most neutral image available. The article needs some sort of lead image. The old image is now in the Legacy section, since I think its worth keeping in the article as an example of how O'Donnell has come to be viewed since his death. ANB (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree, this image is ridiculous. It looks like a cross between a gay super-hero and something you'd see in a children's cartoon. The barbaric modernist construction, which looks like its made out of tinfoil in the other image isn't too much better. However in Donegal there is a really good monument to him, I'll make an image request on the Ireland WikiProject. Here are some (unfortunetly copywrited) examples of it from Flickr.com.[1][2][3][4] - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a lovely monument and would certainly be an improvement to the article. Unfortunately, I don't think it is actually of Red Hugh O'Donnell of Nine Years War fame, but rather of his g-g-grandfather, also (unhelpfully!) called Aodh Rua Ó Domhnaill / Red Hugh O'Donnell. The dates on the plinth in these photos are 1427 -1505, while the O'Donnell of this article's dates are c.1572 - 1602. Do you know of any monuments to the younger Red Hugh in Donegal? I'd be surprised if there weren't any. ANB (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the people who set the statue up seem to have mixed up the dates on it, but the comemoratorative tourist information near it seem to suggest its in honour of this man.[5] I can't imagine that his g-g-grandfather was notable enough to warrant a monument instead of this one. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's reasonably notable. Though certainly isn't a household name like the younger Red Hugh. As you say, a lot of websites do suggest that it is the younger, more famous O'Donnell that is depicted. Oddly, the statue seems to have been unveiled as part of celebrations for the 400th anniversary of the Flight of the Earls, which muddies the waters still further. However, in the course of google searching I turned up the text of the speech given at the monument's unveiling in 2007 [6] and it states the work was intended to commemmorate the older Aodh Rua (who they call Aodh Ruaidh I) who built Donegal Castle and seems to have been a productive and busy guy generally. Actually, I think the older Red Hugh probably warrants a WP article in his own right, he's an interesting individual. Strange that this took priority over a monument to the younger Red Hugh though. ANB (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image in question (which everyone who participated in this discussion seems to agree is not appropriate for the infobox) was restored by an anonymous IP back in April. I've replaced it with the image of the Curlew Mts. statue. Dppowell (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an image of "The Gaelic Chieftan" sculpture for the infobox image. No contemporary image of O'Donnell exists, and pages such as Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York and Rory O'More set a precedent for using posthumous portraits of noblemen in the infobox. I am open to using a more suitable image if one is found.

SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 1:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

O'Donnell's Title

[edit]

I've changed the description of O'Donnell as 'Prince of Tyrconnell' to 'Lord of Tyrconnell'. 'Prince' appears to me to be a problematic term to use in a country which had no unified kingship based on primogenitur. ANB (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did that quite idiosynratic (and culturally English) definition of 'Prince' become standard? 'princes' 'kingships' 'kingdoms' and all else unquestionably existed in Ireland prior to British colonial occupation. See this standard academic text for example. 78.16.146.218 (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've read Prof. Byrne's book, it's very good isn't it? I agree that the definition of 'prince' I'm suggesting is restrictive, but I do think it's widely held. The fact is that 'prince' (rightly or wrongly) conjures up a very definite set of associations for most people and I think those associations are potentially misleading in this context. I don't think any term is entirely satisfactory, but the O'Donnell's would, initially at any rate, have thought of themselves as 'kings' (as you imply) rather than 'princes'. Hence, if we reject 'lord' as too vague I think 'king' is preferable to 'prince'. ANB (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flight to Spain and Death

[edit]

I've removed the portion of the section above relating to his cause of death: "While it was once commonly held that he had been poisoned - a James Blake from Galway is often named as the assassin who befriended and then poisoned him on behalf of the English." The entry, aside from not having reference or citation, is also highly inflamatory and poorly constructed. I have yet to locate any source for such a claim that is not circular in reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.134.190 (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

Aodh Ruadh Ó Domhnaill → Hugh Roe O'Donnell — This page should be moved to either Hugh Roe O'Donnell or Red Hugh O'Donnell. Those are the anglicizations of his name and the names by which he is best known. Nobody knows him as Aodh Ruadh Ó Domhnaill except maybe the 3% in Ireland who still speak Irish as their native language. On that note, this is the English language version of Wikipedia, not the Irish language version. If we have anglicizations of his name, we should use them. John of Lancaster (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Jafeluv (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hugh Roe O'Donnell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Roe O'Donnell over Aodh Ruadh Ó Domhnaill

[edit]

Folks, I would like to hear a few ideas upon the form of names used in many Irish biographical articles. This one is an example. It seems very strange to refer to people like him by the English form of their names, especially in this case when people like him barely spoke English and were deeply opposed to all things English. I am not asking for the article to be rewritten as Gaeilge, but to respect such aspects of their lives and insist upon Aodh Ruadh Ó Domhnaill over Hugh Roe O'Donnell. I might add this is also good scholarly practise here in Ireland to use these forms for such people, because of the deeply Gaelic context of their lives, so there are a number of good bases on which to do this. Fergananim (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention this IS the English Wiki. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muiris mac Sean Ulltach

[edit]

Is there any solid evidence that Fr Muiris mac Sean Ulltach was there at O'Donnell's death? The Annals of the Four Masters mention Flaithri O'Mulconry and Muiris mac Donogh Ulltach being present, but not the other Ulltach.


I understand that, in the 1630s, both Ulltachs contributed to the Annals of the Four Masters, and I think this may have caused confusion with which Ulltach was there. Please correct me on this if you have a reliable source.


This is the Annals passage I'm referencing: https://celt.ucc.ie/published/T100005F/text014.html


I SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 09:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Never mind. Apparently the other Ulltach was present, according to O'Donnell's will: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20496218


I SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdate

[edit]

Can someone please provide a reference for Hugh's birthdate of 30 October 1572? It is currently unsourced.

Hugh's birthdate of 30 October was added in June 2011 by [[User:Yobot]], a bot account, from Wikimedia.

I checked Hugh Roe O'Donnell's Wikimedia page and it references his birthdate as being "imported from Wikimedia project Russian Wikipedia", without providing an actual reference.

His birthdate on the [|Russian page] is similarly unsourced.

SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've found this document study pack from the Donegal County Council which states his birthdate as being "October 1572". https://archive.org/details/CulturalResources006/page/n47/mode/2up

SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 8:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Further update: Success! I've found this book from 1984 which lists his birthdate as 30 October 1572: Starke, Shirley (1984). Red Hugh: The Story of Hugh Roe O'Donnell (PDF). Valley City, North Dakota: The Aodh Ruadh Ó Domhnaill Guild. p. 3.

I was worried for a while that the 30 October date might have been circular reporting that began on Wikipedia. Good to know this is resolved.

SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 7:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Current issues with the page

[edit]

At the moment, this article relies far too much on primary sources (History of the Irish Franciscan Monasteries, Philip O'Sullivan Beare, O'Clery's Life of Hugh Roe) which are obviously biased towards portraying O'Donnell positively. I'm not saying we shouldn't use these sources, but they need to be accompanied by secondary sources.

I think this article's positive bias towards O'Donnell is a larger problem though. Eg, The way it discussed O'Donnell's murder of his four-year-old nephew. Historians John McGurk and Hiram Morgan point out that there is uncertainty whether the murder occurred, but it can't be dismissed out of hand. Before I added those bits in recently, this article heavily implied that the murder was simply English propaganda, with no real source to back up the claim.

Across the next few months I will be heavily rewriting this article using James O'Neill's 2017 book on the Nine Years' War, Hiram Morgan's Dictionary of Irish Biography entry on O'Donnell, and Darren McGettigan's 2005 biography (in addition to various other reliable secondary sources).

I welcome any help in improving this article and getting it up to standard. SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think primary sources are the actual parchments residing in the remote archives of Rome, Madrid, etc., written in archaic versions of languages most contributors don't speak, containing many obsolete and technical terms requiring professional training to parse correctly.
I suspect that the sources you are citing are heavily redacted, edited and foot-noted editions published in the 19th and 20th centuries by professional historians. Which necessarily makes them secondary.
Of course, there are significant differences among secondary sources, but for my money I prefer those that heavily reference their interpretation of original primary documents. It's how you know they have a vested concern with accuracy and transparency, instead of irresponsible speculation. JackMason1 (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jack, I agree that sources which directly quote original texts are incredibly valuable. My concern is that O'Sullivan Beare and O'Clery themselves had vested interests in portraying Hugh Roe O'Donnell as infallible and heroic. I think we should acknowledge the way O'Donnell's contemporaries saw him, but we should also utilise the research of modern historians when it comes to discussing O'Donnell's personality, military tactics, etc. And again, the article needs a healthy mix of citations (original texts + modern research). SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 03:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So it's more a matter of maintaining a proper critical distance from the subject rather than primary sources per se. Because--although I'm not an expert on the literature--I highly doubt Hugh Roe did not have his critics within the Crown Establishment of the time. I'm sure there are some quotes available if one looks hard enough.
I know O'Connor Sligo was not a fan. Just working off memory here, but I believe that when Hugh Roe discarded Tyrone's daughter, he proposed marriage to the daughter of O'Connor Sligo. I believe his motivation would be to legitimate his conquests in Connacht, in keeping with historical precedents, as well as to secure an heir. But the woman herself was less than enamored, and made some uncomplimentary comments about his appearance. Can't recall where I read that, but some internet searching might turn something up.
Sir Shane O'Doherty was not a fan, either, and he corresponded with the Crown in an attempt to secure their support to his independence as Lord of Inishowen. Matthew McGinty touched upon this in a recent paper, "Every Kingdom Divided".
Bottom line: you don't become a leader of any kind without making a whole lot of enemies who are not shy about sharing their opinions.
The essential problem is the same as obtained in the Gov. Moore situation, raised to the power of whatever--how to present conflicting perspectives on a revered legend without starting a flame war.
My takeaway from that situation is that direct contrast works better than trying to de-legitimize sources. Like, explicitly indicating the relationship or perspective of BOTH "sides" instead of challenging the adequacy of a specific perspective. Everybody has bias, and in my experience, at least, it's pretty rare that some published source is so grotesquely inadequate that it is objectively "wrong" in an absolute sense.
Focusing on the primary/secondary distinction as validating critera feels unlikely to be very productive to me. It's such a poorly defined criterion that even if the wiki authorities were to make an explicit decision in some case, it would only have the practical effect of enflaming opposition. It's extremely rare that undisputed original research would premiere on wikipedia, rather than the book market.
You probably don't want to do a "he said: she said" on a line-by-line basis. Maybe you could do something like add a new section entitled "Controversies" or "Alternative Perspectives", with an introduction specifying that a lot of the early literature about the subject emerged from the specific context of the nascent, anti-colonial nationalism of the 19th century, with later generations shifting focus to internal, domestic conflicts and perspectives, addressing a new set of social and political theories, inevitably leading to a variety of opinions. Something like that. JackMason1 (talk) 06:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hugh_Roe_O%27Donnell&oldid=1247827395"