Talk:Laudabiliter

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

Date of invasion[edit]

The invasion of Ireland began, at first, in 1166 AD — according to a previous version of this article. Did History change ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.68.244 (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

English King Henry II[edit]

Born in France, 3/4s Norman, lived in France, married a Frenchwoman, spoke French not English, married in France to a Frenchwoman, died in France, buried in France. How did he get to be English exactly?

He invaded England and made himself King, he was not English.GordyB 10:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Not an Anglo-Norman either, from the Anglo-Norman article:-
The Anglo-Normans were the descendants of the Normans who ruled England following the conquest by William of Normandy in 1066. They spoke the Anglo-Norman language. Following the Battle of Hastings, the invading Normans and their descendants formed a distinct population in England.

Henry II's mother was Anglo-Norman but his father was not and his mother was his only connection with England. He belonged to a different dynasty from William the Conquerer.GordyB 13:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Henri II would have been horrified to be described as English. The English were just a part of his empire. "Laudabiliter" was issued as we hadn't ever paid our dues to Rome for the use of the Christian message - rather like using a franchise today.86.42.219.183 (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work fellow. Henry II was as English as Queen Victoria was Irish. Some people are very indoctrinated on the subject.GordyB (talk) 08:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Citation for quote[edit]

the quote from john is perfect for a paper im doing but you guys havent put in Real citations, way to make this page useless —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.141.20 (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Write your own paper, lazy student.GordyB (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
When you've tracked down the citations, come back and edit them in: that's how it works: get some help, give some help! --Wetman (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

lazy? i am writing my own paper, i use wikipedia to get a clear understanding of my subject matter and then use real sources to back wikipedia (which is an unacceptable source in university). however the quote on this page is wonderful, but useless since it isnt sourced. who ever put the quote up should be sourcing it at the same time as they add it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.141.15 (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You who have contributed nothing to this page, feel the need to crticise the efforts of those who did?GordyB (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Which quote, 131.104.141.15/20? If you mean either one of the two "big" quotes, the ref is here. A reference is as an end-note rather that inline. It lacks the publisher and place, which you will need for an academic essay. A full citation is:
  • Hull, E., 1931, A History of Ireland, Volume One, GC Harrap & Co.:London
As a tip, an easy way to find the source of an an uncited quote is to Google a chunk of it (e.g. like this).
Now, if you are done demonstrating how lazy everyone else is, and if we've helped you enough with your essay, you might be so good as to do the work of putting the citation in line and adding the publisher and following the conventions in Wikipedia:Citing sources. As the person, who wrote much of the article as it stands (see diff), I feel I've done enough, but that you haven't. --sony-youthpléigh 21:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Dusty Archives[edit]

"No further official reference to the Bull of 1555 nor to Laudabiliter was ever made again — neither by the Papacy nor by the Governments of England, Ireland nor Spain. It must be presumed that the low-level Papal diplomatic recognition of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1914 and the establishment of full diplomatic relations between the Holy See and the Irish Free State in 1922 both entailed the implicit final consignment of Laudabiliter to the dusty archives."

"Dusty archives" is an out of date cliche. Most archives are not dusty and mouldy and the documents held by archives are far from dead in this part of the world. John Kelcher, Sound Archivist, New Zealand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.144.32.165 (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Article expansion[edit]

I'll be expanding each section some more over the coming days. --Domer48 (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverting a copy edit[edit]

Domer48, what are you doing reverting a copy edit? Do you think it is productive to revert additions of wiki-links, grammar fixes, and MOS italics? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

He's done it again. Hard to assume good faith when he's just dissed your work without explanation. -- Evertype· 08:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Domer48, I've placed a request at ANI over your behavior on Laudabiliter. Regards, --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

OR at the end[edit]

The last sentence "It must be presumed that the low-level Papal diplomatic recognition of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1914 and the establishment of full diplomatic relations between the Holy See and the Irish Free State in 1922 both entailed the implicit final consignment of Laudabiliter to the archives." is very bad. It starts with an unsourced presumption and ends up with a bit of poetry which has no clear meaning. "Implicit" seems like OR, and what does "final consignment to the archives mean"? -- Evertype· 07:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Lnk to Wikisource[edit]

Domer48, this is tedious now. The document on Wikisource was named according to the source that it was taken from (viz. James F. Dimock, 1867, Giraldus Cambrensis, vol. v, pp. 318-319, Longman & Co.). That is cited on Wikisource. Stop breaking links just because they don't agree with your original research.

You have reverted every single one of the edits to this article since yesterday. Please review WP:OWN. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Provide quotes which support the claim that the letter of Alexander III to Henry II, as "Confirming the Bull of Adrian." Provide sources that challange the claim that it was a forgery?--Domer48'fenian' 11:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikisource is library of primary documents. That is the title given to that document in that source. The entirety of the document is quoted verbatim on Wikisource. To read the document, simply follow the link (if you have not broken it again already). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Provide quotes please? --Domer48'fenian' 11:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The document itself is the quote! Top-to-bottom. Source: James F. Dimock, 1867, Giraldus Cambrensis, vol. v, pp. 318-319, Longman & Co.. It is also quoted verbatium in Eleanor Hull, 1931, A History of Ireland and Her People, Volume 1, London: Harrap, Appendix 1, which can be read online.
How on earth can you believe that a source, quoted verbatim, can be original research? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Your Link here clearly shows that you are not quoting James F. Dimock but are in fact quoting Eleanor Hull. It also shows that your use of a section head "PRIVILEGE OF POPE ALEXANDER III TO HENRY II, CONFIRMING THE BULL OF ADRIAN, 1172" by Eleanor Hull as the origional name for ALEXANDER III's letter, which is one of three is plain old WP:OR. Now provide the quotes I asked for. --Domer48'fenian' 12:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That is the title given to the document in the source. Therefore that was the title given to the document when it was added to Wikisource. End of. Take it up with Hull or Dimock or anyone else, but wherever you take it, take it to Wikisource because discussion of other projects does not belong here. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
OK. I see you've moved it on Wikisource per your own OR. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Your correct discussion of other projects does not belong here! On Articles we insist on Sources/References and Policy. Now you were citing sources which you have not got, your source was a web page, and the title was a section head. Take your WP:OR somewere else, because here we are building an article. Stop the disruption. --Domer48'fenian' 12:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I quote a published source verbatim and you get your knickers in a twist because it doesn't sit with your POV.
WP:IECOLL is neither here nor there. Let go of the grudges. You're right, we are building an article. That means that sometimes I will copy edit your work. It's not slight against you that I would do so: we are building an article. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No! You cited James F. Dimock, 1867, Giraldus Cambrensis, vol. v, pp. 318-319, Longman & Co here and here and tried to pass it off in this discussion also. You were citing Eleanor Hull and your link here clearly shows us that's what you did. You tried to pass of a section title as the common name for this letter and were busted. Now on this article, we don't make up sources, or references its as simple as that. Now this discussion is over I've an article to work on. --Domer48'fenian' 13:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Hull cites Dimock ("For the original see [Dimock's edition of the works of Giraldus Cambrensis, vol. v, pp. 317-319 (1867)], pp. 318-319; and Ussher's Sylloge, No. 47."). For Wikisource it's the original that counts, not who cites the original. I'm changing it back because Hull is still in copyright. Dimock (who she quotes verbatim) is not. Please be careful with attribution for copyright matters.
  • "You tried to pass of a section title as the common name for this letter and were busted." I put the source at the title that was given in Hull (verbatim). You didn't like that and changed it on Wikisource per your own OR. I don't believe the document has an authoritative name, so I don't mind what you call it so long as it can be found. The issue was that you were breaking the link by changing it here only. Your change of title on Wikisource is fine if you think it is more neutral than what Hull (or Dimock) called it.
Now, if I see a spelling mistake or a randomly placed comma on this article, do you think it would be OK if I fixed it? Or do you still own this article? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... we have a problem. There appears to have been more than one privilege that Alexander III gave to Henry II. Might explain why Hull (or Dimock) tacked "Confirming the Bull of Adrian" onto the end. I'm of a mind now to switch it back, unless you can think of a better title? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If you read my comments above and the article you’d know there was three letters. If you read the article you’d also know that they do not confirm Adrian’s letter at all the opposite in fact. So no we do not have a problem, you do! --Domer48'fenian' 15:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The three letters were addressed to three different people, so how do you make out the they represent three as opposed to one privilege that Alexander III gave to Henry II. --Domer48'fenian' 15:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I mean other privileges granted by Alexander III to Henry II. I thought there was more relating to Scotland and Wales and with all the Beckett affair, but maybe not. Having had a bit of a trawl I can't find any. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Red links[edit]

The is about three red links created during the expansion which I will create articles on over the coming days. I've removed the unsources sections and will expand them also. --Domer48'fenian' 08:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit and review[edit]

The article has been entirely rewritten over the past two weeks. I'm going to:

  1. Copy edit the article as it stands
  2. Edit the (essentially) new article

I'd suggest the author of the (essentially wholly) new article take a back seat for a while. Your work is appreciated Domer, let others now do theirs. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is no were near finished! Now I’ll be asking for a review of it when it is. So I’ll be carrying on with what I’m doing thanks! --Domer48'fenian' 19:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
You've been at it for two week. The article has been totally rewritten. How much longer will you be owning it for? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Opening translation of Laudabiliter in English dubious source - competing versions.[edit]

We have the version from The History of Ireland By Stephen Gwynn (page 80 e.g. [1] ) which goes, "Laudably and profitably hath your excellence conceived the design." (note the full stop inside the quotes) but then Stephen Gwynn does not quote any more and uses the translated word "design" in the following sentence: "Henry's design was represented as that of...." and so on. It feels suspicious that the translated text is then reused in such a way because if we look at an alternative translation that is fully listed in appendix 1 of A History of Ireland and Her People (1931) by Eleanor Hull (Gutenberg have the text here [2], there is a much longer first sentence, "Laudably and profitably doth your Majesty consider how you may best extend the glory of your name on earth and lay up for yourself an eternal reward in heaven, when, as becomes a Catholic prince, you labour to extend the borders of the Church,..." blah blah blah blah you get the idea. We thus should not trust the Stephen Gwynn reference as a translation (though we can use other commentary it may have) as it has truncated the text and intersperses his own commentary into the translation, reusing the translated words for a point. That full stop basically spoils that reference as I do not believe it is in the original text and so I propose we alter the opening text translation to reference the Eleanor Hull version. Well unless someone can paste the Latin wording here. Ttiotsw (talk) 13:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is simply to illustrate the origion of the name "Laudabiliter" and that it came from the opening line and the word "Laudably." Now here is two translations of "Laudabiliter" here, but I don't have a clue what the point is you are trying to make. If you are saying that the Bull "Laudabiliter" did not get its name from the opening line, then provide an alternative source which challanges it. I've listed the book to date I've used and not one of them has explained how the name for the Bull came about, I still have a couple more books I'm waiting on so I'll add any additional information on the name if I find it. --Domer48'fenian' 15:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I had assumed that everyone knows that all (AFAIK) papal bulls/encyclicals etc derive their name from the first wording (in Latin) in the Bull so obviously I'm not questioning the actual name but the specific translation into English by Gwynn. I said that I propose we alter the opening text translation to reference the Eleanor Hull version (which is the one in the Dimock reference) and so the specific changes would be,
Drop "Laudably and profitably hath your excellence conceived the design."
Add "Laudably and profitably doth your Majesty consider how you..."
add appropriate reference to either James F. Dimock, 1867, Giraldus Cambrensis, vol. v, pp. 317-319, Longman & Co and Eleanor Hull, 1931, A History of Ireland and Her People, appendix 1. Ttiotsw (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)You have changed the article to now not match the source as you have dropped the full stop even though the source has this in within the quotes that it uses. The exact source is, "Laudably and profitably hath your excellence conceived the design." but you have changed it to indicate further text by using "Laudably and profitably hath your excellence conceived the design...". Couldn't we discuss the changes first ? Gwynn seems to be a poor choice of source for this translation, Dimock seems better. Ttiotsw (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Do Eleanor Hull or Dimock explain were the word "Laudabiliter" came from, no. The only book to date that can be referenced is Stephen Gwynn. Find another source if you must, just tack it on at the end. Now I provided the link to two versions of the Bull, provide me with a source which say which one is the correct one and get back to me. --Domer48'fenian' 16:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No I disagree on the selection of the source, because papal bulls (albeit these early "bulls" are letters that are commonly known as bulls only nowadays) are named after the first wording of the document (in Latin) I feel is as common knowledge as the "Sky Is Blue". That a reference says that the "Sky Is Blue" adds little verisimilitude to subsequent claims that are fringe about Rayleigh scattering. So, I will add a section that shows why the papal bulls are called what they are called and reference a better source for the translation. Ttiotsw (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Provide a source for what translation? By all means provide a source that says all Bulls are named after the first wording of the document (in Latin), that will support the reference from Gwynn. Now you suggested that Stephen Gwynn as a source is dubious, which lets face it, that is BS. The Gwynn's are a very notably family of historians. Giraldus Cambrensis put a translation of Laudabiliter in three of his books, all different. Which one is the correct one. Please provide a source to support you answer? As to "common knowledge" it means nothing on wiki, here we deal in facts supported by WP:V and WP:RS. This means fairy tale on how you ended up on this article or at the other discussion hold no water when facts are required. --Domer48'fenian' 20:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I find in Louis Francis Salzman, Original sources of English history, 1921 page 66 has "it derives its title from the beginning with the Latin word Laudabiliter (Google link [3]. We do have Salzman in Wikipedia as a historian. I also find in Thomas Reid (naval surgeon) Travels in Ireland in the year 1822 (Brief sketches...), published 1823, and from page 29 has the Latin text and the end date is claimed as 1156. I was delayed in answering here as I just wrote the article Thomas Reid (naval surgeon) this morning. I wrote the stub list of the encyclicals of Pope Pius VI [4] on the 2nd August as a result of writing about the French Revolution well before the issues on the 6th August and as you can see I have a pile of redlinks....so I'm looking at other encyclicals that are bluelinks (which there are few) and I see Laudabiliter is extensively edited by you. Don't edit encyclicals if you don't want people to look at ....well.....encyclicals.
The text we now have is anachronistic as it says "The Bull became known from its opening word as Laudabiliter, from the word "Laudably." - obviously the English word Laudably would post-date the Latin (Laudable as a word dates from mid 1400s) so the Bull can't be "from the word "Laudably"". I suggest that the text be,
The Bull derives its title from the beginning with the Latin word Laudabiliter. (ref = Louis Francis Salzman, Original sources of English history, 1921 page 66)
We should also have a link to the actual Latin text (or texts if there are competing primary sources). It seems hard to see in our article where the Latin text can be found and in fact the word "Latin" does not appear at all in the article even though the bull was written in Latin. Ttiotsw (talk) 11:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Louis Francis Salzman says the exact same thing then as Stephen Gwynn! That wiki have an article on Salzman, does not justify your ignorance or comments on Gwynn. The opening word of the letter was “Laudabiliter,” obviously since it’s written in Latin, in English it translates as "Laudably" so add the text and additional reference. Speaking of references I’ve also asked you twice to provide a reference for which version of “Laudabiliter,” is the correct translation. With Thomas Reid, you’ve just given yet another version, after already suggesting Dimock. The fact that Reid suggests that it is a fabrication says a lot, and Salzman agrees. So which fabrication should we use and why? I have the section ready here for the different views on it, Reid being a good example of one end of the extreme. 1156 is an altogether different discussion and will be in a section of its own, and is the suggested alternative letter to “Laudabiliter” which I have not written yet but be my guest and start that section yourself if you want. When you try again to explain how you came to this discussion here could I suggest you start of with “once upon a time” because the facts don’t stack up, hence a fairy tale. --Domer48'fenian' 13:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of the name of papal bulls then obviously Salzman would say the same thing as Gwynn because papal bulls are known by the first few Latin words. What was suspect was Gwynn's translation from the Latin because of how he used it in his text but that is irrelevant anyway as you have removed the text anyway so thank you. As the residual reference is to simply support the well-known naming convention of bulls nowadays then it would be better to use a reference that focuses on Papal documents irrespective of the actual nature of the document. I'll find one.
On the issue of the dates, I did not realise that this was work-in-progress so I won't interfere with you adding the 1156 date (albeit with the text surrounding the truthfulness of the document itself), though I would have though that a date that was actually listed would have been an important detail from the beginning. Is that the fairytale issue you mean i.e. the date in the document that e.g. Reid copies ad verbatim ?. Ttiotsw (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The [5] refers how a single document is indicated with its incipit, in other words with the initial words of the arenga (harangue) (or of the narratio, if the arenga is missing in the document. On another matter I have created the page of Edmund Curtis as we cite him so many times (though my page is stubby with no refs yet - I was looking at the Princess Grace library as it has details of him but they are mucking with their web site so we can't link to that but I'll get these refs). Ttiotsw (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

For Bio on Curtis see A History of Ireland from Earliest Times to 1922, Edmund Curtis, Routledge New York (2002), ISBN 0 415 27949 6. Seán Duffy give a detailed account of his life in the preface to this edition. --Domer48'fenian' 20:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I'd seen that but last night I felt as it appeared in a book Curtis had written that it was insufficiently separated but now that I'm awake I see Seán Duffy is a senior lecturer in medieval history in Trinity today so given the separation in time plus the authority it is isolated from the subject and reliable. Ttiotsw (talk) 07:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Slight reformat[edit]

I've removed the 1311 letter and the 1317 Remonstrance from a mere subsection; they stand on their own. It's also clear to me that Laudabiliter was an extension of Pope Adrian's work in Norway as papal legate in 1152-1154, centralising the church's power and bringing in the peripheries of Europe, and making us pay for the privilege. If it hadn't been Henry II it would have been some other king, sooner or later.Red Hurley (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverting copy edits[edit]

This encyclopedia is written collaboratively. This series of edits, particularly their edit summaries, are not in the interest of the producing good quality articles:

One editor in particular has done stellar work on imporiving the depth and quality of this article, but no-one owns it. Step back and allow others to improve the article also in good faith. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Page protection[edit]

Ya'll should consider 'protecting' the article. 'Tis alot better then having disputing editors blocked (which doesn't help the article dispute resolution). GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Papal bull section[edit]

I've twice removed the "papal bull" section from this article only to be summarily reverted by Domer. None of the other articles I randomly checked from List of papal bulls has a detailed section about bulls in general -- they all just wikilink to the Papal bull article, and I think this should do the same. Thoughts? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Domer48 could explain why he thinks it is necessary to include a generalised section on papal bulls in this article, when a general article already exists, to which can be linked from this article. On the face of it, I can't see a reason. Mooretwin (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The very fact that "The Bull Laudabiliter" is not a papal bull is reason enough obviously to make it particularly relevant to this article. The fact that it is also referenced, unlike the Papal Bull article is also an obvious reason. However the fact that it is subject pacific could not have been lost on any sincere reading of the text, and therefore is removal could be obviously seen as spurious. --Domer48'fenian' 13:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence for the bull[edit]

The summary of the evidence cited by a number of sources are set out in a chronological order which are then addressed in the article as each one is arises. That there are quite a number of conflicting sources, and that sources that may agree with each other on one aspect may do so based on different conclusions means attribution is necessary. However, since no detailed rational was offered to support the removal of large amounts of relevant and referenced subject specific information, its removal is without merit. That no mention, on either the talk page or edit summary was made on the removal of vast amounts of referenced text, it would almost appear as a form of blanking. I've replaced the stable version of the text per WP:BRD.--Domer48'fenian' 14:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a very great article, which is pretty much what you'd expect given the sources.
The subject itself is pretty simple. John of Salisbury went to Rome and got letters from Pope Adrian granting Henry II some sort of rights over Ireland. We can't check exactly what it was because there are no papal registers for this period and very probably it was not the one Gerald the Welshman claims to reproduce. We can be reasonably sure it did grant Henry some authority because Pope Alexander III's letters support this. The End, probably. Only probably because one could always add context at the start and something about the antiquarian storm in a teacup at the end.
Thoughts? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I think Domer48's additions are useful, for the record, but need tidying up (all those "he says" could go). The original can't be found, but the social effect of something like the original is undeniable. Arguing about the text(s) is relevant, up to a point. Let's recall that Obama's birth certificate was burnt in a fire, but because the actual original paper certificate is unavailable we have the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, yet there he is, very much alive. Some of the 1800s "Laudabiliter deniers" (if I may) were Irish nationalists and Roman Catholics, with an agenda to disprove England's embarrassing claim to rule over us with Rome's authority; others were very genuine academics. The historian Edmund Curtis was underrated in his day, but did like to stir it up, which is why he is still in print.Red Hurley (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The reason for the "he says" is simple attribution, needful in this case but alternatives welcome. It is too simplistic to say that the "Laudabiliter deniers" were Irish nationalists and Roman Catholics, with an agenda, since the opposite could also be suggested. There is only one source for the Laudabiliter, Giraldus Cambrensis who is wholly unreliable and certainly was working to an agenda. The tag that was placed on the article says "Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information" but offers nothing else. It suggests that there is newly available information and that the article does not reflect recent events, so what and were is it? --Domer48'fenian' 14:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree about the tag. I said some were nationalists, not all. The controversy went fairly quiet after 1922 and the formation of the Irish Free State, didn't it, and so probably that is why the tag was placed there. I agree that Giraldus Cambrensis had an agenda, but what proof do we have that Donal O'Neill (as in the 1317 remonstrance) had ever read Giraldus? As it is largely a historical controversy I'm taking down the tag. I think we can stand back and look at the big picture now, but your additions definitely add to the article. The 1555 papal bull reinforced the effect of Laudabiliter, and reminds us what the Church wanted for us at the time.Red Hurley (talk) 08:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
There was still enough of a historical controversy, or the memory of one, in the 1980s for F. X. Martin to comment on it in the RIA history (published 1987, so written well before that). People still do study and write about Laudabiliter, although few seem to think it was of vast importance in the scheme of things, but the main problem with using old sources is that they make it look like there still is a dispute, when that no longer seems to be the case. Arguments between long-dead historians, or even deader C19th Anglican and Roman Catholic clerics, are interesting historical context and do belong in the article, but they are not a substitute for an article. Effectively, what we have here is only context. It's like the world ended in 1922, if not earlier. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
So there is no longer a dispute? I look forward to reading these conclusions of modern sources. --Domer48'fenian' 16:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There wasn't a dispute in the middle ages, which is what matters. If you read that 1317 remonstrance again, you'll find it includes:

"Know, most holy Father, that King Henry of England, who was authorized in the manner already stated to enter Ireland, and also the four kings his successors have clearly gone beyond the limits of the grant made them by the Pope's bull in certain definite articles, as appears plainly from the very text of the bull.
For the said Henry, as is embodied in the bull, undertook to extend the bounds of the Irish Church, to preserve its rights uninjured and entire, to bring the people under the rule of law and to train them in a good way of life, to implant virtue and to root out the weeds of vice and to make a yearly payment of one penny from every house to blessed Peter the apostle."

...and the UCC text was translated by Edmund Curtis. So, whether or not some later academics questioned if Laudabiliter was a bull or not, and whether or not they were right, it had the moral effect of a bull at the time, as far as Domnall mac Brian Ó Néill, King of Tír Eógain was concerned. If not, he wouldn't have bothered writing to the Pope, would he? The text may not survive now, but Domnall claimed to know the "very text of the bull". Can we accept this now, or was Domnall fibbing?Red Hurley (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Other 1739 source[edit]

It, or a version of the text, also appeared in the Magnum Bullarium Romanum published by the Vatican in 1739, which I've cited. Does anyone know if any Irish clergy challenged the wording at the time (i.e. in 1739)? Obviously it was challenged afterwards, but given the mindset of 1739 I believe that the published versions were accepted at the time as holy writ.Red Hurley (talk) 10:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources moved up[edit]

I've moved the wikisources up as it is more useful for casual readers to find them quickly. And then wade into the historical controversy if they like.Red Hurley (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

16th century copy[edit]

Here's a copy of L in the Vatican archives, noting that the original grant was made in, er, 1196.Red Hurley (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and this picture in the Vatican of the grant being made, with suitable (or unsuitable!) green drapes all around.Red Hurley (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Copy of an artistic work before 1923, therefore Wikipedia:Public domain, therefore we can add it to this article. --RA (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

1185 and 1331[edit]

I've added 2 more items suggesting that L existed (or something very like it was understood to exist). Also the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath (not Arborath) was written after the 1317 remonstrance.Red Hurley (talk) 07:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Giraldus Cambrensis-picture[edit]

The picture of Giraldus Cambrensis is wrong. Imo, William of Newburgh is depicted here (with the wrong first name Walter in the description on Commons). --Eusc (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction?[edit]

"Laurence Ginnell cites the (Roman Catholic) Dr. Malone as evidence pointing to the Bull's illegitimacy. Dr. Malone states regarding the Laudabiliter "there does not appear to be in the domain of history a better authenticated fact than the privilege of Adrian IV to Henry II." -How does a "better authenticated fact" prove "illegitimacy"? If this makes sense to someone else, feel free to re-instate it. Mannanan51 (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)