Talk:Irish Rebellion of 1641/Archive 1

Embedded POV

The article as written is embedded with (perhaps unrecognised) pov which minimises the colonist/aboriginal context of the war. (Sarah777 20:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

Why? This was a highly complicated and chaotic event and impossible to reduce to a 20th century colonial/anti-colonial discourse. The rebellion was launched by Gaelic Irish Catholics who had been 'loyalists' a generation earlier but who felt under threat because of developments in English and Irish politics. It was rapidly taken over by the 'Old English', who would have been Ireland's ruling class if it had not been for their persistant attachment to Catholicism. On top of that, quite a few leading confederates were actually English Catholic Royalists, for example the Earl of Castlehaven, while some Gaels, eg Murrough O'Brien, 1st Earl of Inchiquinn took the 'English' side because they were Protestants. I have tried to expalin these contradictions as simply as possible in the article, but it won't be helped by ammending sentences to fit in with a modern nationalist pov.

Jdorney 23:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"a 20th century colonial/anti-colonial discourse". Such discourse is as old as recorded history. It is grounded in reality. To ascribe 20th century "legitimacy" and "legality" to events of 1641 (which you do|) is, however, much more questionable. It appears you wish to remove all the colonial events and ethnic cleansing (which was within living memory of many of the "rebels") from the modern paradigm but then speak about the killing of settlers in pure 21st century PC-speak. eg; "notorious"; "murder"; "inter-communal"; "instigators of violence" - this bunkum could have come straight from RTE/Irish Times commentary on NI since 1970! But your most ridiculous claim is that the current troubles in NI stem from the rebellion of 1641 rather than from the plantations!! - 1641 would not have occurred had it not being for the plantations, blindingly obvious surely?!(Sarah777 (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC))

Not a modern nationalist pov. Simply using modern English to mean what it means. Can you write of ancient Athens (the "glories" of) without pointing out that it survived on slave labour? Were they less slaves because it was 350BC? It is trying to reinterpret the actions of the past by claiming cultural imperialism wasn't really cultural imperialism back then that is POV. (Sarah777 23:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

Sarah, can you first of all present your arguments for what exactly you feel is pov in the article? Can you then back it up with some kind of knowledge from the time? If not it seems like you're just trying to have a row here, to be honest. Jdorney 12:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, baby steps first then? The word "conspiracy" has clear negative connotations and is value-laden; "organise" is neutral, non-pov. If removing weasel words and pov is "trying to have a row" then I don't know how we can make progress. (Sarah777 19:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC))

Ok then, I can live with 'organisers of the rebellion', if you feel its absolutely necessary. Jdorney 22:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Murchadh Ó Briain was Protestant and fighting with the English Parliamentarians, or that Castlehaven was English and fighting with the Irish does not undermine the colonial-anticolonial discourse in the slightest. It in fact reinforces it. 'Cross pollination' (inter marriage/alliance between members of two distinct and opposing groups), as its termed, is a hallmark of all settler-native conflicts. To suggest otherwise betrays a lack of knowledge of how human beings act, and specifically of how colonial conflicts are defined. See Albert Memmi, The Colonizer and the Colonized for a standard academic discussion of the interaction between both groups. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely Mr IP! From Quisling right down to the French girl attracted to the Gestapo uniform - the history of colonisation is an endless tale of betrayal and fraternisation; of divide and conquer; of patriotism and self-protection. And when the colony fails the Mother Country usually leaves the colonists and their allies to their fate. Let us not spare them the fleetest moment of sympathy - for they are either evil or idiots and deserve what they get. Sarah777 (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope I'm not being too kind to settlers anywhere, in any era. I certainly don't intend to be. Sarah777 (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You fiery feisty article, you. You're up there with me Cumann na mBan granny. I'd say you would have been running more than sandwiches in 1916, Sorcha. ;-)86.42.119.12 (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a classic - "Most of the Irish Catholic upper classes were not ideologically opposed to the sovereignty of Charles I ..." Can we seriously name one single one? You weren't in the upper class if you were disloyal. Of course Catholics wanted more out of the system, but that's nothing to do with sovereignty. Nobody Irish ever challenged Charles's sovereignty in his lifetime.78.16.43.39 (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Massacres

Okay I know this is a potential can of worms but what is the basis for the figure 4,000 killed. Figures I have seen put the number killed at between 500 and 1200. Cliste 19:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Phrases like "Recent research" should be banned on WP. What research? By whom? Where is it published? I've put a {{who}} tag on it. --Red King 20:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, sticklers. Ok, references on the way. Cliste, I dunno what you've been reading, but 4,000 is the absolute lowest estimate I know of. Jdorney 23:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

POV language and weasel words; JD section

My WP:NPOV version v JD's WP:Weasel words or pov statement:

• became v degenerated into bloody

• Catholic Confederation v "Catholic Confederation"

• the new government of Ireland v a de facto government of Ireland

• free from the control of the English State v (no text)
• were increasingly threatened v felt themselves to be increasingly threatened

• (no text) v usually as punishment for rebellion

• British occupation of Ireland. v British Protestant state of Ireland
• Dispossessed Irish reacted in the rebellion of 1641 v the build up of local grudges between natives and settlers at all levels of society that would explode into violence in 1641.

• Economics also contributed to Ireland's resistance v Economics also contributed to Ireland's slide into rebellion
• The rebels v The conspirators
• events spiralled out of the control v the violence spiralled out of the control of the men who had instigated it.

• massacring the settler population v massacring the British and Protestant population

• attacks by the dispossessed Irish population on the English and Scottish settlers v assaults by the native Irish population on English and Scottish settlers

• motivated by decades of dispossession and social and economic subordination v motivated by sectarian and ethnic hatred and by resentment of decades

• Communal uprisings of this kind spread v Communal violence of this kind spread

• In one incident v one notorious incident

• the Protestant settlers of Portadown v the Protestant inhabitants of Portadown

• relationships between planters and the dispossessed natives had been improving v inter-communal relationships had been improving

• the cycle of massacres initiated with the plantations v the cycle of massacres initiated in 1641

• the rebellion and killings of settlers v the rebellion and murders of Protestants

• This gave the Irish breathing space to create the v This gave the Irish Catholics breathing space to create the

• land ownership in Ireland passed almost exclusively to Protestant settlers v land ownership in Ireland passed almost exclusively to Protestants.

(Sarah777 (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC))

The problem here Sarah is two fold. First of all, you ascribing a pov to me which I do not hold. Second you are really arguing about the present here, not about 1641 and this is something I am not interested in doing. However, for the sake of fairness and due proceedure, I'll go through the points one by one.

• Degenerated is better than became because degenerated means got worse, which is what happened. No one planned massacres, they planned a coup d'etat

- I think 'became' is better as 'degenerated does indeed imply "worse" - which implies the rising was morally wrong/unjustified; but I'd concede this one, for the sake of peace

• "Catholic Confederation", no pov here at all, it was a newly coined name and therefore is put in quotation marks. And it wasn't a new government of Ireland. The confederates themselves were quite insistent on this point. It was self defence organisation formed with the intention of seeking a settlment with Charles I. At no point did they claim the sovereignty of Ireland. But at the same time the y were administering most of Ireland. Hence de facto, not de jure. And on the next, related, point, it is more complicated than that. Ireland was a kingdom in its own right and therefore, in theory, subject to the King but not the Englsih state. The Confederates pledged their allegiance to the Stuart monarchy, but they did want the English Parliament out of their affairs.

-OK

• Felt themselvs to be v were increasingly threatened. I could let this one slide, but the important point here is perception. Remmeber that these people, the catholic gentry still owned about 60% of the land in the country and were in quiate a powerful social position.

-No - beyond doubt they were threatened

• British occupation of Ireland is an anachronism. First of all, there had not been an Irish state which had been occupied. Secondly, the state in Ireland was the Kingdom of Ireland - which was Protestant and dominated by English settlers. And therein lay the problem. The native upper classes who survived the Nine Years War didn't want to overthrow this state, they wanted to run it. But they couldn't because of their religion.

-"didn't want to overthrow this state, they wanted to run it"; could say the same about the men of 1916; certainly doesn't mean the fundamental struggle wasn't between native Irish and the English/British state

The same could not be said about the men of 1916. They wanted to overthrow the existing order and create an Irish Republic. The confederates (most of them) had no such ambition. They wanted to alter the existing state so that they, the catholic landed class, could have a say in running it. The difference is fundamental. On top of that, most of the people who who ran the Confederation were Old English not Gaels and some of them Earl Castlhaven for example were actually English, but they were Catholics and hence stuck in the same boat. My point is that it was a hell of a lot more complicated than native Irish vrs the Brits.

Jdorney (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• One or two other points, Protesant inhabitants of Portadown, there were no others. It was a planter town.

-So? They were planters/settlers!

• The "cycle of massacres initiated with the plantations". The plantations were not achieved by massacres. There had certainly been plenty of massacres by English forces in the preceding Nine Years War on the inhabitants of Gaelic Ulster. But the phenomenon of two communities who had lived side by side turning on each other was new to 1641.

-The plantations certainly were achieved by massacres; carried out by a state that gained its power to seize the land during the massacres during the earlier war

• I don't really have the energy to go through all the rest right now. But basically the point here is that this was a seventeenth century war with seventeenth century ideas and you are arguing about 20th century ideas that have no place here. If you think its npov, then ge some administrators/arbritatration to decide.

-Glad you don't have the energy, because half (maybe more) of your changes are pure pov; but it will be yourself will have to go to the Admins if it comes to that! (Sarah777 (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC))

Jdorney (talk) 12:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

POV language and weasel words; Sony section=

Babies an dish water, JD, some comments on both:

JD more NPOV:

• the new government of Ireland v a de facto government of Ireland - "de facto" is more accurate

-still OK

• Communal uprisings of this kind spread v Communal violence of this kind spread - let's not mask violence with niceties

-"violence" implies illegitimacy = pov

• the Protestant settlers of Portadown v the Protestant inhabitants of Portadown - Sarah's verios reads like it pleading justification

-And yours/JD reads like a condemnation = pov

• Economics also contributed to Ireland's resistance v Economics also contributed to Ireland's slide into rebellion - "resistance"? what next, "armed struggle"??

-no reply, pointless comment

Sarah more NPOV -

• Catholic Confederation v "Catholic Confederation" - much better, the manual of style is the use italics in this case

-agree

• were increasingly threatened v felt themselves to be increasingly threatened - JD, are you arguing here that it was paranoia on the part of Irish (and English) Catholics? did they just imagine the attitude of (the Irish and English) parliament in the early 16th century??? Sarah's version is much better, unless JD can find a source to show how Irish Catholics "felt" at the time.

-obviously right there Sony!

• (no text) v usually as punishment for rebellion - obvious POV to reduce complicated matter down to justifiable "usualies"

-no sure what you are saying here??

• The rebels v The conspirators - "conspirators" is not value free

-yep, we had this months ago I think

• events spiralled out of the control v the violence spiralled out of the control of the men who had instigated it - blaming men for instigating it puts a blame game into effect, the former is more NPOV

-agree again, natch

• massacring the settler population v massacring the British and Protestant population - prior to 1707, no British please, also the target were not the Protestant population, but the settler population, JD are you thinking of the Catholic/Protestant divide and identity on Ireland from a 20th century perceptive?

-correct about the British phrase, as we have all now agreed in a dozen related debates - though it appears in List of massacres as part of the title for the 1641 events!

• attacks by the dispossessed Irish population on the English and Scottish settlers v assaults by the native Irish population on English and Scottish settlers - "assault" is not value-free

-true

• motivated by decades of dispossession and social and economic subordination v motivated by sectarian and ethnic hatred and by resentment of decades - clearly saying that the 1641 rebellion was fueled by sectarianism, ethnic hatred and resentment was OTT POV, JD, what are you thinking???

-thinking in modern terms I suspect, the very thing JD warns against

• In one incident v one notorious incident - "notorious" is not value free

-indubitably

• relationships between planters and the dispossessed natives had been improving v inter-communal relationships had been improving - no need to mask over reality with niceties like "inter-communal", call a spade a spade

-inter-communal is pure modern PC-speak

• the rebellion and killings of settlers v the rebellion and murders of Protestants - "murder", JD, really? how about a value-free word?

-like, say, killing!

Neither NPOV:

• Dispossessed Irish reacted in the rebellion of 1641 v the build up of local grudges between natives and settlers at all levels of society that would explode into violence in 1641. - can we explain what the local grudges were? then maybe it will be clear without having to make bold statements one way or the other.

-I suspect losing their land (the native Chieftans) or not being allowed work on the land (the natives plods) might have been somewhat annoying

• free from the control of the English State v (no text) - not exacly true, but not exactly false or misleading either and does tidy matter up

-well, that was de facto the big thin about the Confederation

• British occupation of Ireland. v British Protestant state of Ireland - both are anachronistic incorrect, rm "British" until 1707, please, and Ireland was not an occupied state, but was a state of it's own (albeit a satellite one)

-Correct re "British"; not sure a settler state isn't an "occupied" one; in fact I'd say it was

• the cycle of massacres initiated with the plantations v the cycle of massacres initiated in 1641 - blame gaming

-true - maybe leave out the "cycle of massacres" bit altogether?

• This gave the Irish breathing space to create the v This gave the Irish Catholics breathing space to create the - let's stick with "native Irish" as is normal rather than trying to "out Irish" each other

yer projecting here Sony! I'm just being factual; but I use "native Irish" for dab purposes so I'll reluctantly go with that

• land ownership in Ireland passed almost exclusively to Protestant settlers v land ownership in Ireland passed almost exclusively to Protestants. - which settlers? which protestands? not protestant settlers of Ulster but Cromwellian plantation.

-maybe "Cromwellian Protestant Settlers and the earlier Ulster and Munster plantation folk got to keep their ill-gotten gains too", or would that be POV?(Sarah777 (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)) --sony-youth^pléigh 13:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm afraid I really can't participate at this level of detail as I am simply not familiar enough with the material, although I've read a couple of Irish histories some years ago. My main point would be, from the POV of an outsider, that Sarah's edits come across as promoting a simplistic, black hat vs white hat account where the Irish are innocent victims and the British settlers are wicked oppressors. History is rarely that simple and if my brief sojourn into Irish history has taught me anything, it's that Irish history in particular is not. The account needs to be NPOV, not written from just one particular POV, which is what Sarah is apparently trying to do. Gatoclass (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to be straightforward and say that it annoys me that people who are obviously not very familiar with the subject matter can come and change an article to suit their own pov. However that's wikipedia.

A few general points. If people want to change things like, 'felt threatened' to 'threatened'. No problem. Likewise if people want to change 'murder' to 'kill'. However if people want to insert a 20th century nationalist narrative on the article, that is something that I do have a problem with. Why? Becuase it's too simplistic and because it has nothing to do with the reality of a complex and highly chaotic 17th century event.

Some specific points. In a seventeenth century context, 'conspirators' was not too pejorative, but 'rebel' was. Phelim O'Neill and co were incredibly insulted at being called rebels because they argued that they were legally defending the King's privilege. The divide in 1640s Ireland was not ethnicity it was religion. Native Irish who converted to Protestantism ended up on the 'English' side (eg. Murrough O'Brien, 1st Earl of Inchiquinn]]). English settlers who were catholics ended up on the 'Irish' side (Richard Bellings for example). Also to use a term like 'Ireland's resistance' in this context is completely meaningless. There was an unplanned and mostly anarchic rebellion that the Catholic establishment organised after the fact.

Jdorney (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

We must use words with their modern meaning - otherwise nobody will understand what we are saying. And the if it was "unplanned and mostly anarchic" then "spontaneous uprising" would better describe; I'd be very happy with that description. There was a huge overlap between ethnicity and religion; the exceptions merely prove the rule. Your argument about chaos and exceptions could be made about any conquest and confiscation anywhere; it doesn't change the basic dynamic. Also, you appear to continue to want to "condemn" the rebels using very modern concepts and language but dismiss the causes of the rebellion as unsuitable to such treatment. Can't have it both ways. You appear to be imposing a very modern "anti-Nationalist" narrative; which is as bad or worse than the "Nationalist" narrative you fear. (Sarah777 (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC))

The problem here Sarah is that you are aplying a 'dynamic' to an event which you don't seem to have a lot of knowledge of.

Lets look at this; Phelim O'Neill, whose family had fought against Hugh O'Neill in the Nine Years War and actually recieved land in the plantations, but who owed a lot money and risked losing his lands through mortgage. An anti-colonial native freedom fighter? The idea wouldn't have made sense to him one way or another. Eoghan Rua O'Neill fits the bill better, but he actually tired to do a deal with the English Parliament in 1649 at a time when he was fighting with the other Catholics. The man who betrayed the 1641 plot, Owen O'Connolly, was equally Gaelic Irish but Protestant. The leaders of the Confederation were the Pale Catholic aristocracy. All of the Catholic Confederation's business was carried out in English or Latin, not Irish. My point is; it's complicated.

Of course there was a huge overlap between religion and ethnicity. I actually went out of my way to emphasise this in the article. But it was very far from simple. Native v planter is one axis of conflict in 1640s Ireland, but only one. Religion {Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, Independent) is another. Land-ownership is another as is political allegiance (Royalist, Parliamentarian, Confederate, Covenanter). Gaelic Irish, Old English, Scottish and New English people can be found on all of these different sides. If this is also true about comparable situations elsewhere, then good. But this is an article about a specific event - Ireland in 1641.

I do have a pov, as do we all, but its not an anti-nationalist one, I'm just asking for the complexity not to be reduced to a simple colonial/colonist discourse.

Jdorney (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure who your comment above was directed to, but regardless I think your latest edit is a good compromise. Gatoclass (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Not directed at you Gatoclass. Directed at the people who have been reverting the article. Thank you for your input. Jdorney (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well JD, I'm going to be straightforward and say that it annoys me that people who are writing with a strong pov accuse others of not being familiar with the subject matter. Your text is loaded with value-laden and pov-embedded weasels and, apparently, you can't even see that. Which raises interesting questions about how perhaps the knowledge of many facts is no proof of ability to interpret them. (Sarah777 (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC))

Y'know Sarah I actually wrote the whole article, only parts of which you felt were POV. So is it possible I wrote the article in as npov manner as possible and you just don't like the fairly small parts that don't chime with your pov?. Jdorney (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

JD, I accept (a) that you may be a professional historian and certainly have more detailed knowledge of the events than I have. I think I conceded that months ago. But the whole point of Wiki is that it isn't just "experts" who write it. (b) Loaded words are still loaded words no matter how much you know.

Again, your quoting of exceptional cases hardly proves the overall dynamic wasn't conquest and confiscation and colonisation; who came up with the word "plantation"? And I have nowhere, in my edits, suggested that any single Irish Chieftain was an anti-colonial native freedom fighter. But what I am trying to do is remove any suggestion that the rebellion/uprising/massacres were in any way wrong in some modern moral sense. Or that they were the primary cause the recent troubles in NI. Which is where I detect your strong pov. (Sarah777 (talk) 05:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

Massacres of defenceless civilians are not "in any way wrong"? Sorry, I think you are just revealing the extent of your own bias with that statement. Gatoclass (talk) 06:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Au contraire. It reveals my understanding of WP:NPOV; something you appear to lack. (Sarah777 (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

I'm not a professional historian, as it happens. I went some of the way but turned back. It was never my intention to suggest that the rising was right or wrong, its not really my place to say. And anyway it was an event which kind of got out of everyone's control rather than being planned. As for being the primary cause of the 20th century Troubles, I certainly wouldn't have been arguing that. My point was that it was an event with long term repurcussions.

As for morality. There is no point in taking sides in the past, but an atrocity is still an atrocity, so yes I can say without pov that massacres of civiilians are wrong. Not too controversial I hope. The article points out that massacres were committed by all sides in 1641 and after. If you are interested in this, I recommend, 'The Age of Atrocity', just published and edited by Padraig Lenihan. Cheers. Jdorney (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ordinance of no quarter to the Irish

I have removed:

In addition, the English Parliament passed an Ordinance of No Quarter against the Irish rebels, meaning that prisoners were to be killed when taken.

Because its inclusion here is misleading. The Ordinance of no quarter to the Irish was passed in 1644 and it was concerning the treatment of members of an Irish expeditionary force in England, Wales and the Irish Sea. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

From the history of the article

• 15:00, 4 February 2008 Philip Baird Shearer (→Massacres - co-edit)
• 00:15, 5 February 2008 Sarah777 (discussion and consensus for changes such as this please)
• 12:10, 5 February 2008 Philip Baird Shearer (Replacing uncited text with cited text and an explanation on the talk page for removal of Ordinance of no quarter to the Irish) (undo)
• 22:29, 5 February 2008 Sarah777 (repeat: discussion and consensus for changes such as this)
• 23:14, 5 February 2008 Jdorney (rv it has been cited)

What are your concerns Sarah777 --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that you are making controversial changes without discussion and consensus (as, for example, you demand on "List of Massacres"). As this article feeds into the List I am very concerned with you spreading your edit-warring to "feeder" articles. I strongly advise you to stop. I think my latest edit is a reasonable compromise, don't you? Sarah777 (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I hadn't visited this article for some time but your edits drew me to it and I see that J. Dorney has re-instated almost all his weasel words. Sarah777 (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

OK Philip, I never heard of the Glenmaquinn massacre before, so I'll have to concede on that pending some research. Sarah777 (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777 by now I would expect you to be very familiar with WP:PROVEIT, so why have you been deleting cited information and re-adding information for which there are no citations? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse? What "uncited information"? (I hope you are not doing a "ONIH" here; dissing an edit that you know is well cited because actual citation isn't included in a revert/edit - even though you are clearly aware it exists). Sarah777 (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No Sarah777 I am talking about this revert and this revert and this partial revert --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the first two were because they weren't discussed and consensus wasn't sought - as I said. The final edit was my attempt at ending your edit-warring with a middle-ground solution. You know Philip, I really do try - but you have to try and meet me half-way. You are too 'dogmatic'. You regard your interpretation of Wiki-rules as some kind of precise mathematical formula; it is anything but. Our task is to try and make them more so. To struggle to improve rather than to imagine that we are perfect. Sarah777 (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarah I'm through being polite with you. Just do a bit of research and then come back and debate as much as you want when you know something about the events in question. Until then you're wasting everyone's time here. Jdorney (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really. For instance I think that under my guidance you are (slowly) learning what "weasel words" are. You don't need to be a historian to spot them; being literate is sufficient. Sarah777 (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Assistance requested at List of events named massacre

The Irish Rebellion of 1641 is listed at the above named list-article as "Massacre of Scottish and English planters". Until recently that list-article was simply called "List of massacres"... and the fact that the Rebellion has been discribed as including numerous "massacres" was well sourced and fit the inclusion criteria.

However, due to the result of a recent AfD nomination, the list has been renamed and a new set of inclusion criteria have been developed. Under the new name and criteria, the list has shifted its focus to events where the word "Massacre" is part of an accepted name for the event (as in "The XXX Massacre", "The Massacre of XXX" or some variation there of). As it stands, the entry on the Irish Rebellion of 1641 does not meet with these new inclusion criteria. We need multiple Reliable Sources to establish the use of the word as a NAME for the event, not just that the event might have been discribed as being a massacre.

As the editors of this article are more likely to be familiar with the sources, I ask that they pop over to the list and correct this situation if they can. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The event is also known as the Irish Massacre of 1641. Multiple references here. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

None of which would pass the "Fallujah test". I just love this "article" . Maybe you should try a POV fork called the Irish Massacre of 1641 - though I can't suggest which massacre you should choose for the article. Sarah777 (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As a parting remark - while I dislike lists in general and think the one above is of the worst kind - the "compromise" you describe above is the greatest load of disingenuous cods-wollap that I have ever heard of. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sony - we may not always agree but have you got that spot on?! (Assuming you mean that the compromise is better than the original tripe list - but still garbage. Sarah777 (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The whole lot, then and now, is rubbish. Better have an article called Massacres and deal with the subject appropriately there. Otherwise you will end up with (before) a WP:BATTLE ground with no reasonable grounds for what to is or isn't a "massacre" or (now) an absolutely ridiculous 'test' to decide if something is or isn't a massacre.

The problem now: Taken at face value an article on events with the word "massacre" in their name isn't notable - any more than an article on events with the word "eclipse" in their name, no body is going to search for that and nobody is interested in that - but then what is really mean is "a list of massacres" - just as what would be meant in my example would be a "list of eclipses" - in which case you must ask yourself is the word "massacre" being in an event's name a valid test of whether it was a massacre or not. It is not. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100%. But it appears (not my rules) that within the existing Wiki-world constructing an "objective" definition of "massacre" is WP:Synthesis. Thus it matters not whether they were massacres or not but only that they were called massacres by sources regarded as "reliable" - which by the Wiki-definition of "reliable sources" leads to a chronically biased and arbitrary list. And yet it appears we cannot agree to simply delete this "article" which is absorbing vast amounts of what could be productive editing time. And to make matters worse we now have "feeder" articles like Irish Rebellion of 1641 being saturated with POV words like "massacre" specifically to support inclusion of an event in this list! Thus spreading the disputes all over the place. Delete this travesty is my call. Sarah777 (talk) 11:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The killings last year at Virginia Tech were a "massacre" but the Night of the Long Knives was not? (1641, by the way, by an measure, was a massacre, but you criticism of language feeding back between articles, for one to prove the other, is quite correct - and a problem caused by "solutions" such as this.)

"within the existing Wiki-world constructing an 'objective' definition of 'massacre'" Yet what appears to have happened is original research? In exactly published source did someone find the the definition of a massacre was an event with the word "massacre" in its name? --sony-youth^pléigh 12:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes on 14 March

There have been a number of changes over the last 24 hours that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irish_Rebellion_of_1641&diff=198590616&oldid=198538120 I have reverted]. I think they need discussion here. In each case I will put the wording as of 13th first.

Comment: some of the edits you restored were added specifically to support inclusion of certain events of 1641 in this list. (Having said that this is certainly not the place to discuss changes to a different article). End Sarah777 (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Until the changes are discussed is an agreed wording it seemed easiest and fairest to revert to the original. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The title of the section Massacre" to "Killings during the rebellion"

• Massacre is the common way that theses specific events are known in histories. As pointed out on this talk page a search of Google books returns lots of references.
• The section heading is linked to other articles. If the section heading is changed the links need fixing.
• Killing is imprecise because it would also include those killed in battle which are clearly excluded from this section.

Comment; Gross over-simplification. What is being done is to aggregate numerous alleged massacres under a single heading - exactly what you vehemently opposed in the case of Fallujah. End Sarah777 (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2008

Comment - no, the section heading links only to this abomination. This list is to be subservient to the other Wiki articles - not the other way round!! End Sarah777 (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2008

Comment - "Killing" is what Wiki-policies and practice says we should use rather than emotive, pejorative and undefined words. The notion that "killing" is less precise than "massacre" is risible. End Sarah777 (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2008

Sarah777 you have not addressed the issue of killing being imprecise how about "Non-combatant killings during the rebellion"? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually you have not addressed my replies but have removed the q&a sequence in order to obfuscate. I ask you again: why dose your reasoning on "Fallujah" not apply here? (And for the umpteenth time I will not facilitate your double-standards by treating each line in this article as a separate universe). Don't even think of repeating your "you have not answered...." until you have answered my reply first. Sarah777 (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

With the Fallujah entry I tried to create a POV for which there were sources. But the different ambushes and attacks initiated by both sides are not lumped together under the term "Fallujah massacre". The only attack for which seemed there was a coherent set of articles calling the event a massacre was the "Second Battle of Fallujah" and it was around that set of articles that I constructed a compromise entry for "List of Massacres". Massacre is the common way that theses specific events of 1641 are known in histories. As pointed out on this talk page a search of Google books returns lots of references. So I do not see any inconsistency in my position over this as the mass killing of non-combatants in Ireland in 1641 are often referred to in reliable sources as the "Irish massacre of 1641" -- even if it is only to argue that no such massacre happened) so having a section called "massacres" does not seem to me unreasonable. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have altered the name to "Civilian killings" as a compromise as non-combatant is clumsy and such a granularity is not needed in an age before the Hague conventions. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Try as I might I can find no reason to reject your latest compromise "Civilian killings". Think how effective you could be if you concentrated more on relieving my stress? Note how we finally winkled a compromise on Fallujah out of you? I still bear the scars from the effort. Sarah777 (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"expelled from their homes" to "expelled from their settlements" Settlements can implies groupings of residences particularly in American English (OED 15), homes does not. Were the settlers living in clusters?

Comment - Yes, actually. End Sarah777 (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2008

Your source for this? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's in Irish Rebellion of 1641 actually. Sarah777 (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"after which the settlers massacred several hundred captured insurgents." to "after which the settlers killed several hundred captured insurgents." does that mean that some or all of them were lawful executions? What do the sources say?

Comment Neither the word "killing" nor the word "massacre" depends of legality to define them. End Sarah777 (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2008

You have not addressed the issue of what the sources say. Massacre implies unlawful or unwarranted and it has since it first started to be used. The only question is when it is used is it used for an unwarranted mass killing. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that is just one of several definitions; I read that Ireland were massacred by England yesterday (rugby) - I don't think that was unlawful. So going back to 1641 in Plantation Ireland what was the law?? (I'd agree with Sony that "insurgents" sounds a bit Iraqi and rebels or simply 'the Irish' would be better). Sarah777 (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"the Scottish planters in Portadown were taken captive and then massacred on the bridge in the town." to "killed on the bridge in the town." does that mean that some or all of them were lawful executions? What do the sources say?

Comment Repeated use of the term "lawful" in relation to events in Ireland is WP:Synthesis. What/Who's laws are you talking about? End Sarah777 (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2008

In this case the laws and customs of war as the were at that time. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"modern research has identified three blackspots for the killing of settlers, with the worst being near Kinard" to "with the greatest being near Kinard," If the word blacksopots is to be used then I don't see the point of changing worst to greatest. Does anyone really think that a large mass killing is not worse than a small mass killing?

Comment Read your Jimbo Wales on the subject of the Nazis and Concentration Camps. "Worse" is pejorative; "greater" is WP:NPOV. Personally I thing the more ethnic cleansers killed the merrier; but I was told not to impose "modern agendas" on ancient events. If we want to use subjective modern usage and mores than I'd prefer "there were bright spots in the rebellion where the ethnic cleansers were killed very efficiently". But someone would onject. That is why we use neutral terms; to avoid such conflicts of opinion resulting in edit-warring. End Sarah777 (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2008

! --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"Modern historians have stressed that the massacres of 1641 had an overwhelming psychological impact on the Protestant settlers." to "Modern historians have claimed that the killings of planters in 1641 had a psychological impact on the Protestant settlers." Personally in the references I have seen I think they stress the point etc, but I have no firm opinion on a form of words that express an opinion.

Comment "Stressed" implies this is a fact, rather than an opinion. Even scientists call their beliefs "theories" not "facts" and History ain't an exact science! End Sarah777 (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2008

Don't see that myself what about the word "emphasised" instead of stressed? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"The Protestant narrative of the rebellion as a preconceived plot to massacre them was constructed in" to "plot to remove them was constructed" The Protestants narrative of the rebellion was that it was a Catholic plot to kill them not to put them on ships and send them away somewhere.

Comment I could accept kill here rather than 'remove'. End Sarah777 (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2008

"Depositions, a collection of accounts by victims" to "Depositions, a collection of accounts by casualties" to me casualties only mean those wounded in attacks, victims would also include members of a family traumatised by the loss of family members as well as the wounded. What is the best description for the people who's experiences are in the accounts? Which word is commonly used in secondary sources?

Comments 'Victim' in this context is imposing modern values on the past. Is a murder who is executed a 'victim'? Another example of why neutral language is so much better. (Though I'd concede this as being arguable). End Sarah777 (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2008

The word victim is not placing modern value on this. In the C17th century the wilful killing of non-combatants was just as unacceptable then as now. That is why when it happened the "their side" the pamphleteers produced their pamphlets and all sides did it. To use the word victim is not inappropriate in this case and as I have pointed out fits the sentence better than "casualties "--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of the word sectarian from "intensified the sectarian animosity that originated in the plantations." why?

Comments The inclusion of 'sectarian' downplays the fact that without the ethnic cleansing of just a few decades earlier there would have been no rebellion and no "massacres" in 1641. End Sarah777 (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2008

I don't see how you come to that conclusion as the sentence includes "that originated in the plantations" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"The bitterness created by the plantations and the massacres of 1641 proved extremely long lasting. " to "The bitterness created by the plantations and the r5esultant rebellion of 1641 proved extremely long lasting." As mentioned further up the page that it is the mass illegal killings that created the bitterness according to "Modern historians" So I do not see the point of this change.

Comment Already dealt with. Had there been no plantations there would have been no killing of planters. This is not really open to debate! End Sarah777 (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2008

If there had not been mass killings then the planters would not have precived themselves as the victims so only the plantations would have created bitterness. It was not the rebellion of 1641 that created bitterness on the side of the protestants it was the mass killing of Protestant civilians. What about "The bitterness created by the plantations and the mass killing of civilians"? Although I think massacre is a better more elegant word in this case. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"Images of the massacres involving Protestant deaths in 1641 are still represented on the banners of the Orange Order." to "Images of the killings involving Protestant deaths in 1641 are still represented on the banners of the" Two problems with the new wording do the Protestant ever show protestants dying in battle or just those massacred? Secondly "Images of the killings involving Protestant deaths" if it is an image of killings then the word deaths is redundant.

Comment OK. I'd agree to remove the word "death" on the grounds of duplication. End Sarah777 (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2008

What about the other point? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"Even today, the killings are thought of by some as an example of attempted genocide" is removed. I think that is the right thing to do. Too many Wikipeida article use the G word when it has a precise meaning under international law which is extremely difficult to retrofit onto past events in a meaningful way as usually intent (planning to kill a significant part of a group) is a necessary constituent for a legally defined genocide and is impossible to prove. This seems to be a clear POV shot.

Comment I really have to chuckle at the notion that "retrofitting" a clearly understood term like genocide is regarded by some defenders of bias as WP:Synthesis but they have no problem "retrofitting" notions of "legality"; "massacre" or even project modern PC concepts onto the situation in Ireland in 1641! Civility prevents me from characterizing the quality of thinking that produces that swamp of irrationality and inconsistency! End Sarah777 (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am strongly inclined to agree. Substitution of "massacre" with "killing" in instances where the former is clearly appropriate is a classic example of employing wp:weasel words. Also by eliminating the use of the word "massacre", it becomes less clear what caused the Protestant community to become so fearful and why there was such outrage about these events in Britain. "Massacre" does not have to be employed in every single instance but it certainly should not be eliminated from the text altogether.

As for the "genocide" reference, that would depend on the quality of the sources used to support it I think. Gatoclass (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It becomes less clear .....why there was such outrage about these events in Britain. Hardly! They saw their land-grabbers being killed and the land they stole being lost; no need to search too hard for the source of their self-righteous anger (aka outrage)! Sarah777 (talk) 12:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with most of the above (all of the latter part). Some comments:

• "The section heading is linked to other articles. ..." Per the manual of style, section headings should not be linked at all.
• "'expelled from their homes' to 'expelled from their settlements'" Using "settlements" here is not NPOV, "homes" is more correct. To strike a balance between both view maybe "houses" could be substituted and allow the reader to decide of these houses were legitimate "homes" or illegitimate "settlements"
• On "killings"/"massacres" and "kill"/"massacre" - I would suggest using "massacre" only as a noun, but use the verb "kill" (as that was the intention).
• "after which the settlers massacred several hundred captured insurgents." "insurgents" is an awful Iraq-war-esqe word that now, thanks to that war, has a value judgement attached to it. Can we please use "rebels" or, better, "native Irish"?

--sony-youth^pléigh 12:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Some good points and I only disagree with one think you said and that is linking between articles and the MOS (see Wikipedia:MOS#Section management) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

re: linking - my mistake, I thought you meant linking from section headings rather than to them. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking an extended break from wikipedia as I couldn't be bothered debating with ignorant people about things they know nothing about any more.

However, doesn't the following line, 'Personally I think the more ethnic cleansers killed the merrier; but I was told not to impose "modern agendas" on ancient events' demonstrate that this editor is not fit to edit this article, or indeed any other one about Irish history? I'll let you decide.

Other editors will also notice that this editor at no time shows any actual knowledge of the events in question, just a desire to put thier own pov slant on them. Should they really have a say in deciding on the content?

Jdorney (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Characterizing your opponents as ignorant is not serving you well Mr Dorney. Since when was a particular viewpoint a criteria for the right to edit? (Though I know you'd wish it so). What 'you can't grasp, and I repeat myself; it that the rules on Wiki are not that you mustn't have pov, but that you mustn't allow it infect your articles. I have been examining some of you other article sand was shocked to find that they are a veritable motherload of pov-writing. It is precisely because there are people like you and me that we are advised to use neutral language. Look at the history of the 1641 article; originally it was written like a propaganda tract and while it improved greatly under my guidance you are trying to slip the pov back in again. You really must get away from the notion of "writing - by - (self-imagined) experts". Clearly your "expertise" does not extend to being able to write in a WP:NPOV style. Sarah777 (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Any, where are the civility police? I will not long remain civil if I can be called "an ignorant person debating things I know nothing about" and a call can be made that I not be allowed "have anything to do with editing Irish History articles". Sarah777 (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Like a propaganda tract. Right. Well here's the link, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irish_Rebellion_of_1641&oldid=9893683. Editors of good fatih (that's not you Sarah), can have a look and see what they think. Goodbye. Jdorney (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If all you can do is continually breach WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA (without sanction or criticism from our oh-so-consistent Admins) then perhaps you'd stay away this time? Sarah777 (talk) 11:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarah to reduce the level of stress you must be feeling over this "criticism from our oh-so-consistent Admins" please see [1] because you do not seem to have read what I wrote. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hadn't you in mind as a "consistent Admin" but that link reads more like you are giving Mr POV some strategy advice rather than chastisement. Why the unprotect, btw? Are we expecting some Socks to revert my latest version? Sarah777 (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

See the edit history: "11:19, 16 March 2008 Philip Baird Shearer m (Protected Irish Rebellion of 1641: partial block for 24 hours so that no one is tempted to use IP addresses as sockpuppets [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 11:19, 17 March 2008 )" I only partially protected the article for 24 hour. Adding and removing the {{sprotect2}} template does not effect the protection it just shows editors it is in place--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have put back the title heading Massacres because POWs were killed as well and they were not civilians. As Massacre is the common name for these events in 1641 it seems best to keep that title than go for "non-combatant killings" which although technically correct is clumsy English--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes on 14 March - Reply (Again)

I have restored my original replies to PBS as a totally incoherent mess has been made of the debate above. (Why am I not surprised at that?) Please do not remove my comments; the comments I am responding to or the sequence in which the PBS comments and my replies occurs.

There have been a number of changes over the last 24 hours that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irish_Rebellion_of_1641&diff=198590616&oldid=198538120 I have reverted]. I think they need discussion here. In each case I will put the wording as of 13th first.

Comment: some of the edits you restored were added specifically to support inclusion of certain events of 1641 in this list. (Having said that this is certainly not the place to discuss changes to a different article). End

The title of the section Massacre" to "Killings during the rebellion"

• Massacre is the common way that theses specific events are known in histories. As pointed out on this talk page a search of Google books returns lots of references.

Comment; Gross over-simplification. What is being done is to aggregate numerous alleged massacres under a single heading - exactly what you vehemently opposed in the case of Fallujah. End

• The section heading is linked to other articles. If the section heading is changed the links need fixing.

Comment - no, the section heading links only to this abomination. This list is to be subservient to the other Wiki articles - not the other way round!! End

• Killing is imprecise because it would also include those killed in battle which are clearly excluded from this section.

Comment - "Killing" is what Wiki-policies and practice says we should use rather than emotive, pejorative and undefined words. The notion that "killing" is less precise than "massacre" is risible. End

"expelled from their homes" to "expelled from their settlements" Settlements can implies groupings of residences particularly in American English (OED 15), homes does not. Were the settlers living in clusters?

Comment - Yes, actually. End

"after which the settlers massacred several hundred captured insurgents." to "after which the settlers killed several hundred captured insurgents." does that mean that some or all of them were lawful executions? What do the sources say?

Comment Neither the word "killing" nor the word "massacre" depends of legality to define them. End

"the Scottish planters in Portadown were taken captive and then massacred on the bridge in the town." to "killed on the bridge in the town." does that mean that some or all of them were lawful executions? What do the sources say?

Comment Repeated use of the term "lawful" in relation to events in Ireland is WP:Synthesis. What/Who's laws are you talking about? End

"modern research has identified three blackspots for the killing of settlers, with the worst being near Kinard" to "with the greatest being near Kinard," If the word blacksopots is to be used then I don't the point of changing worst to greatest. Does anyone really think that a large mass killing is not worse than a small mass killing?

Comment Read your Jimbo Wales on the subject of the Nazis and Concentration Camps. "Worse" is pejorative; "greater" is WP:NPOV. Personally I thing the more ethnic cleansers killed the merrier; but I was told not to impose "modern agendas" on ancient events. If we want to use subjective modern usage and mores than I'd prefer "there were bright spots in the rebellion where the ethnic cleansers were killed very efficiently". But someone would onject. That is why we use neutral terms; to avoid such conflicts of opinion resulting in edit-warring. End

"Modern historians have stressed that the massacres of 1641 had an overwhelming psychological impact on the Protestant settlers." to "Modern historians have claimed that the killings of planters in 1641 had a psychological impact on the Protestant settlers." Personally in the references I have seen I think they stress the point etc, but I have no firm opinion on a form of words that express an opinion.

Comment "Stressed" implies this is a fact, rather than an opinion. Even scientists call their beliefs "theories" not "facts" and History ain't an exact science! End

"The Protestant narrative of the rebellion as a preconceived plot to massacre them was constructed in" to "plot to remove them was constructed" The Protestants narrative of the rebellion was that it was a Catholic plot to kill them not to put them on ships and send them away somewhere.

Comment I could accept kill here rather than 'remove'. End

"Depositions, a collection of accounts by victims" to "Depositions, a collection of accounts by casualties" to me casualties only mean those wounded in attacks, victims would also include members of a family traumatised by the loss of family members as well as the wounded. What is the best description for the people who's experiences are in the accounts? Which word is commonly used in secondary sources?

Comments 'Victim' in this context is imposing modern values on the past. Is a murder who is executed a 'victim'? Another example of why neutral language is so much better. (Though I'd concede this as being arguable). End

Removal of the word sectarian from "intensified the sectarian animosity that originated in the plantations." why?

Comments The inclusion of 'sectarian' downplays the fact that without the ethnic cleansing of just a few decades earlier there would have been no rebellion and no "massacres" in 1641. End

"The bitterness created by the plantations and the massacres of 1641 proved extremely long lasting. " to "The bitterness created by the plantations and the resultant rebellion of 1641 proved extremely long lasting." As mentioned further up the page that it is the mass illegal killings that created the bitterness according to "Modern historians" So I do not see the point of this change.

Comment Already dealt with. Had there been no plantations there would have been no killing of planters. This is not really open to debate! End

"Images of the massacres involving Protestant deaths in 1641 are still represented on the banners of the Orange Order." to "Images of the killings involving Protestant deaths in 1641 are still represented on the banners of the" Two problems with the new wording do the Protestant ever show protestants dying in battle or just those massacred? Secondly "Images of the killings involving Protestant deaths" if it is an image of killings then the word deaths is redundant.

Comment OK. I'd agree to remove the word "death" on the grounds of duplication. End

"Even today, the killings are thought of by some as an example of attempted genocide" is removed. I think that is the right thing to do. Too many Wikipeida article use the G word when it has a precise meaning under international law which is extremely difficult to retrofit onto past events in a meaningful way as usually intent (planning to kill a significant part of a group) is a necessary constituent for a legally defined genocide and is impossible to prove. This seems to be a clear POV shot.

Comment I really have to chuckle at the notion that "retrofitting" a clearly understood term like genocide is regarded by some defenders of bias as WP:Synthesis but they have no problem "retrofitting" notions of "legality"; "massacre" or even project modern PC concepts onto the situation in Ireland in 1641! Civility prevents me from characterizing the quality of thinking that produces that swamp of irrationality and inconsistency! End

Sarah777 (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Now would you like to reply to the points I raised against you comments. See the section above. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have replied. You have not addressed my replies but merely repeated your questions. See section above. You reply first; in sequence; to all my replies; no obfuscation or evasion. Thanks. Sarah777 (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy

I've tidied up the conspiracy section; the principal cause was Charles' perceived weakness. I suggest that the experts on the massacres put in some dates.

I can't believe that this is only rated "mid-importance" - the event that led on directly to the Cromwellian conquest and a loss of 20% of the population.86.42.215.203 (talk) 07:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A third of the population I've read - it also led to the end of the Gaelic Irish culture. So I'd be inclined to rate it TOP myself - once all the pov has been cleansed from it. Sarah777 (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no doubt that it was a hugely traumatic event in Ireland's history, and I would consider it to be of top importance as well but I wouldn't say that it marked the end of Gaelic Irish culture. The Irish language was still the majority language of the country in 1700, its decline was a very long drawn out process. The lamentations over the effects of the war, death, defeat, exile, loss of the land, were written in Irish as well as English. Jdorney (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was going to say the "beginning of the end" but it obviously wasn't the very beginning either - more like a tipping point. Either way I'd agree that it (including Cromwell's reconquest) is certainly "TOP", despite the fact that you wrote it :). So we don't disagree on everything after all...... Sarah777 (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Sarah777 (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

We may not disagree on anything actually Sarah. We've been squabbling over wording rather than content. Jdorney (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." to quote an English words-smith --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr Churchill I presume? Sarah777 (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wentworth

I've altered that Wentworth "was proposing further widespread confiscations of native land in order to break the power of the Irish Catholic upper classes" and "It is likely that this would eventually have provoked armed resistance from Irish Catholics".

His main focus was to raise money by checking and regranting titles, he annoyed both protestant and catholic landowners (all in all a tiny minority of the population), and generally he did not investigate many titles granted to Gaelic landowners under the surrender and regrant process, probably because they generally had less money to pay.86.42.205.203 (talk) 10:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Not true. He was planning extensive new confiscations of Catholic land in Leinster and Connaught. See Nicholas Canny's 'Making Ireland British'. Jdorney (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Massacres at Rathcoffey etc.

"Other massacres were carried by English and Scottish forces at Rathcoffey, Clongoweswood and Timolin in the province of Leinster. In each case, all of those captured in rebel held castles, including women and children, were put to death. [32]" These massacres were in Kildare in 1642, not during the rebellion, and should be mentioned under the civil war or confederate war articles; so I am removing this.86.42.206.248 (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Name: Irish Insurgency of 1641?

Just reading Pádraig Lenihan and he's saying that the insurgents claimed that they were most definitely not 'rebels'[Confederate Catholics at War, 1641-49 (Cork, 2001), p. 36]. Jane Ohlmeyer also places the word 'rebel' in quotes throughout Ireland from Independence to Occupation, 1641-1660 (Cambridge, 2002). Both books can be read on Google Books. Indeed, a Google there of "1641" and "rebels" has most sources agreeing that 'rebel' is not a neutral word. Why is it used here? 86.42.119.12 (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

How many books call it the Irish insurgency? Cetainly the two you've mentioned don't. WP convention says we use the recognised name. Jdorney (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Rathlin Island or Islandmagee

this edit change "On Rathlin Island" to "On Islandmagee". Yet the source (Royel) says Rathlin Island and a search of Google Books on ["Duncan Campbell" Rathlin massacre] returns several books.

["Duncan Campbell" islandMagee massacre] returns non, but [Campbell islandMagee massacre] returns 6 (two of those are citing two different massacres on the same page, pinning the first on English and Scottish soldiers and the second, of 80 people, on Colonel Campbell and soldiers of John Clotworthy)

One of the books returned by the ["Duncan Campbell" Rathlin massacre] may provide a link to the second massacre as the snippet mentions that they went from Rathlin Island to the north coast of Antrim (Clan, King, and Covenant by John Leonard Roberts p. 41 snippet)

Here is a source ( God's Peoples By Donald H. Akenson p.41) that reports on reports of a massacre at Islandsmagee, but here also are a couple of online sources that report the massacre on Rathlin which involves throwing people of the cliffs [2] [3]. So I am reverting the edit because it looks as if there was more than one massacre that might have involved throwing people of cliffs and the current source (Royel) says Rathlin not Islandmagee. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Jdorney (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

You asked me to discuss here so: you continuously try and portray the events as primarily a sectarian dispute despite the fact the settlers took control of the land withing the living memory of many of the "rebels". I think such presumption is preposterous - the notion that the "rebels" would not have been motivated to revenge were the newly arrived settlers (from a different culture) not "protestants" defies belief. And unless you can prove such a bizarre motive by explicit neutral references we best adopt an NPOV approach. Modern usage would have them as recently arrived land-grabbers from a foreign culture and country and would assign full blame for all resultant violence to the "newcomers". Unless you can prove otherwise that is the NPOV approach. Sarah777 (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The key word here Sarah is "I think". You are just plonking your pov into the article without any supporting evidence at all. That is not an "NPOV approach".

You may think that use of the word, "Protestant", "defies belief" but this was a 17th century, openly religious war. Each and every source, 17th century and modern, agrees on this. You are apparently, trying to have a 20th century debate in the 17th century. What modern usage "would have done" is utterly irrelevant. Jdorney (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hardly. I know the presumption is preposterous, OK? Better? Human nature does not change. The notion that people driven from their homes would only seek vengeance if the attackers were of a different religion is not credible. And being contra human nature, (not contra some imagined 17th century mindset in Ulster), the onus is on you to prove such an improbable motivation. You have not done so. Sarah777 (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The different religion may have exacerbated the question and even provided a rallying flag; but without the plantations there would have been no rebellion. And no settlers to repel. The fact that you (and others) use the events of 1641 as quasi-justification for Unionist attitudes towards Nationalists in NI 300 years later yet can't see the events of 1600 contributing overwhelmingly to the events of 1640 is beyond parody. But we need to keep such surreal historical fairy-telling out of Wiki.Sarah777 (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

As for historians; when highly informed people in 2009 with access to immeasurably greater "factual" knowledge cannot agree on the motives, rights and wrongs, religious v. nationalist weightings etcetera etcetera of say the invasion of Iraq and the aftermath, the notion that there is a definitive version of the 1641 "rebellion" is risible. Perhaps if you were better aware of current affairs and human psychology you'd not be so addicted to ancient, mainly one-sided, accounts? Sarah777 (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Rant over? Go and get a blog if you want to elaborate on your pov. Failing that, base your edits on some sort of sources, then come back and we can debate. But in the meantime consider the following: Phelim O'Neill, leader of the rebellion, was a benificiary of the Ulster Plantation. The first Supreme Council of the Confederation was 100% Old English Catholics, none of whom were affected by the Plantation. They defined themselves as, "his majesty's Catholic subjects". Etc etc. We've over this many times before Sarah. Jdorney (talk) 09:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

One important point that needs to be taken into consideration is that not all the planters were Protestant; a minority of English planters (perhaps as many as 20%) were Catholics, who fled to Ireland in the early 1600s in an attempt to escape persecution in England. These English Catholics for the most part sided with the Irish insurgents: The most influential of these was James Tuchet, 3rd Earl of Castlehaven. Likewise, there were a small number of Irish Gaels who were Protestant, most notoriously Murrough O'Brien, Baron Inchiquin. Certainly, there was a large ethnic element to the war, but I feel that the conflict should not be defined as purely ethnic in nature. Inchiquin (talk) 09:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Connor Maguire

An anon editor wanted to add Connor Maguire to the list of notable beligerents. This may well be true, but if he is to be added, we need a reliable source that confirms it. --Red King (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Found. Connor Maguire, 2nd Baron of Enniskillen is the person in question. --Red King (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

End of the rebellion?

At what point did the rebellion end and the "Confederate war" begin? Was ther a break between the end of the former and beginning of the latter? If we look at the Timeline of the Irish Confederate Wars ther ar' three possible dates (tho I'm aware that the timeline misses out some events):

• March 1642, when "the Irish Catholic bishops convene a meeting at Armagh about how to bring the rebellion under control"
• July 1642, when "Irish Catholic clergy and nobles draft an oath binding the rebels together in common cause"
• October 1642, when "Confederate Catholic Association of Ireland is established"

So, which ar' the most commonly acsepted dates? ~Asarlaí 14:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Tough (but relevant) question. I'll try to get back to you on this. Jdorney (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd say 22 March 1642 when most of the synod of bishops proclaimed it as a holy war. They met at Kells, not Armagh, but were headed by the Archbishop of Armagh Hugh O'Reilly.Red Hurley (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

After reading thru The Confederation of Kilkenny by Charles Patrick Meehan, I think May 1642 is the best date. That is when the Confederate Oath of Association was drawn-up and a Confederate Supreme Council and General Assembly wer' proclaimed. Altho the Confederation itself wasn't fully set-up until October 1642, May 1642 is when the rebels became known as Confederates. The following, which I added to the article, explains it more fully:

On 10 May 1642, Ireland's Catholic clergy held a synod at Kilkenny. Present were the Archbishops of Armagh, Cashel and Tuam, 11 bishops or their representatives, and other dignitaries.[49] They drafted the Confederate Oath of Association and called on all Catholics in Ireland to take it. Those who took the oath swore allegience to Charles I and vowed to obey all orders and decrees made by the "Supreme Council of the Confederate Catholics". The rebels henceforth became known as Confederates. The synod re-affirmed that the rebellion was a "just war".[50] It called for the creation of a council (made up of clergy and nobility) for each province, which would be overseen by a national council for the whole island. It vowed to punish misdeeds by Confederate soldiers and to excommunicate any Catholic who fights against the Confederation. The synod sent agents to France, Spain and Italy to gain support, gather funds and weapons, and recruit Irishmen serving in foreign armies.[51] Lord Mountgarret was appointed president of the Confederate Council, and a General Assembly was fixed for October that year.[52]

~Asarlaí 02:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Belligerents

Articles states and sources "There were also cases of purely religious violence, where native Irish Protestants were attacked and Catholic settlers joined the rebellion". Would it be helpful to add 'Irish Protestants' and 'Catholic Settlers' to the list of belligerents, or would that be misleading? --Flexdream (talk) 09:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Not necessary I think, they were more the exceptions than the rule. Jdorney (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The history shows uneven and sporadic attacks and counter-attacks over the 5 months, in which most people on the island were not involved. You couldn't say that all Irish Catholics were up in arms on 23 Oct 1641. Several thousand in Ulster; several thousand in Meath and Kildare by the end of 1641; Munster and Connacht were mostly peaceful way into 1642.Red Hurley (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Which calendar is being used?

Does anybody know is the date 23 October 1641 the British date or the Irish and Roman Catholic date? For instance, in the Battle of Kinsale the English date was 24 December 1601, but as the Irish followed the Gregorian calendar it took place on 2 October 1601. Can somebody clarify the 1641 dates in this article? 109.77.220.202 (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Everyone used the pre-1752 British date at the time, in all the written records. You say "as the Irish followed the Gregorian calendar" - we probably did when we were writing letters in mainland Europe, but not in Ireland.Red Hurley (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Jesuits under the bed

"The rebellion was to be executed on 23 October 1641 (Roman Catholic Feast of St. Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Jesuits)."

This sentence has a whiff of conspiracy theorism about it and I can't find any source for such a claim. The Catholic feast for Ignatius of Loyola is 31 July, not 23 October (coincidentally... today's date, another Jesuit plot??). Claíomh Solais (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Breathing space in 1642?

The war in England gave the Irish Catholics breathing space to create the Irish Catholic Confederation, which would run the Irish Catholic war effort.

I'm altering this, as the synod led by Hugh O'Reilly (Archbishop of Armagh) declared a "holy and just war" in March 1642, and the English civil war started in October 1642, months later.78.18.200.177 (talk) 09:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Terms of the Plantation

The bit erroneous but of information I removed that was restored by the one edit mostly likely a VPN IP (not new for me either recently, have I got a stalker?). They state there is a citation, where is it at? The statement is easily proved wrong anyways so it will be removed once more once i provide the citation here showing it to be BS. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The IP open proxy sock has been banned anyways. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

And regardless of the terms of the plantation, it wasn't put into full effect and the Irish largely remained on the land as tenants and workers contrary to the terms of the plantation something complained about by king James in later years. Surprised the IP didn't know this but it will be added. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Considering my stalker is no doubt watching, here is the evidence that dispells their misplaced notions that The terms of the Plantation, particularly in Ulster, were very harsh on the native population, who were forbidden from owning or renting land in planted areas and also from working there on land owned by settlers.[3] was actually put into practice. To save myself time here is some quotes from just one expert source on the plantation: Robinson, Philip (2000); The Plantation of Ulster, Ulster Historical Foundation. ISBN 978-1-903688-00-7.

Page 186-7: Just as British settlers did not restrict themselves to the undertakers' estates, Irish were to be found everywhere, well beyond the limits of the land allocated to church, servitor and Irish grantees. Almost all the undertakers' estates had considerable numbers of Irish resident, and on many poorer estates Irish outnumbered British greatly. It did not make economic sense for the undertakers' to remove Irish physically from those townlands for which no British tenants could be found... By 1622 Irish settlement in the lowlands was interspersed with British settlement... The continuing presence of Irish on most plantation estates raises the question to the extent to which assimilation of the Irish by British took place.

Page 189: Without rents from Irish tenants many undertakers could not have managed the plantation estates successfully, and use of Irish labour indicates co-operation between planters and Irish in the early years.

Page 189: The Irish rebellion of 1615 was no more than a series of uncoordinated attacks which had little chance of progress even though Irish outnumbered British in most areas. Irish tenants were still hopeful of retaining profitable land, and many had found employment in the new towns or with the building programme.

Indeed major Irish grantees in the plantation accounted for 56,490 acres of land, and once the lands of Irish clan grantees are included, a total of 77 grants spanning 94,013 acres was given to the Irish!(Page199-201). That is 20%, a fifth of the plantation area (Page 86) This hardly equates to being forbidden from owning land! Seeing as stated, the statement is bogus and nonsense and easily disproved it is being removed as the terms of plantation were never stuck too and so hard no effect in that regard. Other factors resulting from the plantation did however, but definitely not the terms. Simply copying and pasting a random source from within the article to source an irrelevant sentence doesn't cut it. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I will ask the IP to engage here in discussion than edit-war over the clearly debunked and entirely irrelevant piece of information they are seeking to enforce on the article. How does the terms of the plantation have any relevance to the rebellion if they were largely ignored and never put into practice? None. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. Bizarre accusations of stalking aside, I did not lie about what the source said. I looked through the Plantations of Ireland article and found the source there. You can check for yourself if you do not believe me.

It is relevant because the Irish rebelled because the British colonialists were horrible.46.209.214.235 (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

There is clear lack of logic in that argument especially since evidence was provided showing Iriah grantees were as much to blame for their own misfortune. No relevance proven between the terms of the plantation and the rebellion. Behaviour of colonists and converts is not the same thing. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed you say you picked a source from a related article and that it can be found there. Where at as I can't find it orma similar statement to the one you wish to restore? Mabuska ^(talk) 17:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)